By the third time a helicopter flew into view, I was exhausted, and dreaded the prospect of yet another interminable and unconvincingly rendered crash scene.

The plot was an unappealing mess of recycled ideas. This film brings us yet another revenge story about someone who shares history with Bond but has since turned evil. That was precisely the plot of the last movie - and rather like the last three Star Trek films, most Batman films, the Superman reboot, this year's Avengers, etc.

Like last time, the stakes are raised by nebulous and non- frightening, yet world threatening (so we are told, but never shown) computer network technology.

The film once again focuses on the question: "are spies still relevant?" I don't find that to be an interesting premise for a Bond film. Why not just assume that the answer is 'yes' and make a fun and smart action movie with a heart? Casino Royale nailed this. If you really must cover the question of whether your main character is relevant, then at least deal with it once and accept the answer! In Skyfall we learned that you still want a man in the field. In this movie, we learn that you still want a man in the field (and, in case anyone was still not getting it, poor Ralph Fiennes in his role as a flaccid M spells it out literally).

While I liked both actors involved, I didn't care for the romance - the movie desperately wants to build it up to be something more than an just another Bond girl. That is an admirable idea, but since the result pales in comparison to the stellar romance in Casino Royale, it seems totally unconvincing when Bond sacrifices his entire career for her at the end. Holy moly - Bond settles down? For THIS girl? What an ending to Craig's character arc that started with Vesper's death (so much more meaningful than anything in any of the other Craig Bond films). Bam, all his emotional problems are solved, because he met a hot blonde. "I've got something better to do than all this!" (throws gun away, gets into car with whatshername). Gee, great ending.

All the interesting plot developments from Casino Royale and (and even Quantum of Solace to some extent), such as Bond's emotional state after losing Vesper and the Quantum organization, are chucked out the window. Skyfall discarded Quantum in favor of a good idea (Bond/M son/mother relationship) and a bad one ("is MI6 still relevant?"). Now, Quantum is back... Kinda. This time, it forms no threat at all - you see, it turns out this OTHER organization that THIS movie is about is even moar powerfuller. And it was really this other, super duper evil organization all along. Muahaha!

That is a tiresome plot twist if ever I've seen one. It completely missed the mark for me; it's weak to try and make your own plot look better by retroactively stating that all villains of the previous movies were really just pawns in this guy's game of chess.

And that's not the only aspect of Bond history that is severely diminished by this film. In Skyfall, we learned about Bond's youth, spent with an old Scottish dude named McAngus. I think. And, of course, his relationship with M.

This time, however, it turns out that Bond actually grew up in the Bavarian Alps with a couple of yodeling Germans named Oberhausen. Errr? Am I the only one confused here? (Possibly.)

Bond turns out to have a sort of surrogate brother, who is very blond, very German, and very jealous. Oh and he also happens to be a supervillain, with an enormous army, who somehow managed to stay absolutely hidden for all these years. There is a powerful and compelling reason for his having all these skills and resources: it's convenient for the plot.

And so, all previous Bond movies are reduced to one large scam operation, a plan by an Alpine superhero that makes absolutely no sense, in a failed attempt to give this movie a great villain. Christoph Waltz is a joy to watch, but he is never allowed to be a real threat. The man gets little to work with, as did Javier Bardem in the last one - criminally underused, awesome actors.

The film's tone was confusing. There is one gruesomely violent scene involving eyeballs - I don't enjoy seeing such aggressive violence, although here I seem to be in a vanishingly small minority. Call me old fashioned, but I was always happy that Bond films used polite violence: gentle fist fights until one guy faints, or perhaps someone shoots a gun and somewhere else, far away, someone falls to the floor.

Putting my personal feelings aside, it was jarring to have this scene be followed up by a cartoonish fist fight on a train, after which the eye-ripping guy is yanked out of a train by a rope, but not before realizing his predicament like Wile E. Coyote hanging over the ravine and saying "shit!". Is this a corny spy movie with train fights a la Bond vs Jaws? Where Bond leisurely glides a crashing airplane around for a few minutes and then humorously lands precisely on top of the bad guy's car? Or is it a somber drama about an aging man's career in a time when nobody knows whether spies are still relevant? Or does it want to be a raw, violent gangster film like Goodfellas, reveling in the sight of bad guys proving their credentials by maiming others?

Finally, I found the camera work jarring in many action scenes - shaky cam, etc. This may have been (partly) due to my sitting in the fourth row, though.

SPECTRE (2015) ***1/2 Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Monica Bellucci, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Dave Bautista, Andrew Scott, Jasper Christensen, Alessandro Cremona, Stephanie Sigman (cameo: Judi Densch) Craig continues to prosper as James Bond (in possibly his swan song turn as 007 if rumor has it) and does so with a bang: out to avenge the recently departed M as well as confront the nefarious leader of the titular conspiracy group hellbent on sabotaging international security at any cost. Waltz is slimily evil as the notorious Blofeld and a continuing supporting crew for Bond including aces-up-his-sleeve Fiennes as the new M, spunky and sexy Harris as Moneypenny and crafty Whishaw as Q. Bautista's near mute turn as a brute echoing Robert Shaw's blond Russian thug of "From Russia With Love" and Richard Kiel's Jaws from Roger Moore's pair of flicks is indeed formidable and chilling. While there is little believable chemistry between Craig and new Bond gal Seydoux there is the little-used but always welcome sultry Bellucci to spice things up. Director Sam Mendes returns to the franchise pulling out all the stops including a one-take non-cut opening salvo pre-credit trek thru Mexico City's Day of the Dead ceremony with Bond tracking an assassin that involves a crumbling hotel and one helluva vertigo inducing chopper sequence. Fast, fun and fierce and by all means make sure to see it in a big-screen/IMAX venue just to invision an 80 foot high Bellucci :D

James Bond or Agent 007 has been since it beginning in books and specially in movies the standard male fantasy. He can seduce any women, practice every sport and win, drink as much as he wished and never get drunk, live all the fashion. drive the best cars (preferable Aston Martin) or any other vehicle (like jets, Helicopters, boats) and fight and kill any enemy without regret. The Regan era; and sadly most of his followers; consider the emblematic British spy as a piece of crap and decided to moralize it; both Timothy Dalton movies kisses required an AIDS test. Luckily Pierce Brosnan's Bond was somewhat a back to the origins. He smiled and made jokes;, seduced women, drink and kill when necessary; but some Hollywood asshole and a few absurd critics; decided it was becoming a parody and wanted for Jason Bourne style. A killer without personality looking for vengeance.

Those critics; obviously did not know or even care to understand that Bond's movies were meant for entertainment and never to be taken seriously. It gave us the people who lived and suffered the Cold War; some hope that WW III will not happen.

But; the people who control movie industry decided to think for the people and very little care about public want.

So they created this monster. Daniel Craig's Bond is basically a tortured person looking for vengeance. Humor is gone; and it is hard to believe a person without any kind of charisma could seduce anybody or even have any friend.

His previous three movies; had at least a decent action scenes that compensated somehow for the lack of fun in the full movie; but this time Mendez and Craig decided to ruin everything for everybody.

The peak of the movie is the short sequence before the titles. It is somewhat original (at least the helicopter part); but nothing after that comes even closer to be entertaining.

To make matters worse; Tom Cruise's MI-Rogue Nation; has basically the same script. In fact Cruise's self righteous movie has infinite more humor and ten times more action than this absurd drama.

Mendez who did a good thing with Javier Barden in the previous movie; waste in this one group of outstanding actors never letting do anything interesting.

Christoph Waltz has little change to become an interesting villain and whenever he is able to show his charisma; something stupid happens (who has the stupid idea of making them foster brothers ?). Monica Bellucci is there for no reason. Léa Seydoux could have been replaced for a cardboard; since her chances to act are minimal. Ralph Fiennes looks bored in his short screen time; obviously because his character is not interesting at all.

As I stated before; in terms of action; aside from the first scene; there is not much more.

There are a car and plane chase that is interesting. a car chase that is too simple and too dark to enjoy, a few clichéd fights with Dave Bautista and others, a few shootings and an explosion at the end that is simple cheap.

None of the action pieces makes a lot of sense and do not take more than half hour in total; so the other two hours of the movie are basically bad acting (Craig with this stone face), terrible dialog (everywhere) and a few postal shots of a train in the desert.

It is obvious the movie was troubled when start and director; after making history on create the most successful Bond ever; both want to quit.

Why they accepted, other than contractual obligations and a paycheck, are beyond my knowledge; but does not justify this disaster. We the public do not deserve this type of insult.

In brief; a very bad movie that you should avoid and let the producers know this is not the kind of cinema we are willing to see.

If Skyfall was the deconstruction of James Bond, Spectre is the reconstruction. Daniel Craig has returned once more as 007, with Spectre marking his fourth (and potentially final) outing as the character. In Spectre, Bond follows a cryptic message from his past, which leads him to the evil criminal organization known as SPECTRE. After three films, this is the first of the Daniel Craig Bond films that feels more like the Sean Connery/Roger Moore-era Bond adventures, and that is a good thing.

Longtime Bond fans should know all about SPECTRE, who were the very same criminal organization that terrorized Bond for almost all of the Sean Connery films (save for Goldfinger). Due to some issues involving legal rights, the filmmakers have not been able to use SPECTRE since the early-to-mid Seventies. Ultimately, the rights were returned just a couple of years ago and now we have SPECTRE's triumphant return in a film that hits all of the beats one expects of a classic Bond adventure: exotic locales, an imposing henchman, some sultry Bond girls with troubled pasts, cool gadgets, and a maniacal villain in the form of Christoph Waltz's Franz Oberhauser. On top of all that, Spectre is chock full of great Bond moments. From an opening action sequence that features one of the finest Bond fight scenes ever, to a Swiss Alps duel between Bond in a plane and the bad guys in SUVs, Spectre finally turns Daniel Craig's Bond into the superhero the character once was, and the 12-year- old inside of me loves it. Of course, the single greatest element of Spectre is not necessarily it's throwback feel or the fact that it's the first Daniel Craig Bond that fully embraces the Bond mythos, but it's how this film effectively ties together all of Craig's Bond movies.

Featuring nods to the events of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall, Spectre kind of feels like the end to the whole enchilada. In some ways, that's good. It has been rumored that this might be Daniel Craig's last Bond film, and if it is, then it is an amazing end to his tenure. No other actor who has ever played Bond has had a run of films as strong as Craig's, and a large part of that is that all of these films have been direct sequels to the others. None of the other Bond films ever really acknowledged any character growth or story progressions from one film to the next, but the Daniel Craig movies all have. The Bond in Casino Royale was brash and impulsive. The Bond in Quantum of Solace was moody and violent in response to Vesper Lynd's death. As for Skyfall, Bond was tired and worn down, a relic searching for a purpose. And Spectre finds Bond struggling with the repercussions of his past while finding his heart and soul once again. By the time the credits roll on Spectre, you really feel as if a myth has been born and Bond is back in tip top shape, better than ever.

I give Spectre a 9 out of 10!

James Bond(Daniel Craig) infiltrates a criminal organization known as Spectre, but soon discovers he might have a bigger connection to it then he thinks.

Daniel Craig once again knocks it out of the park has James Bond, but in this one he is a little more loose, then he was in the last ones. Characters M, Q, and Money Penny are giving more to do this time, then just being side characters. But Christoph Waltz really is who grabs you has the main bad guy, when he's on camera, you'll feel the chills going down your spine, he just has a menacing presence. David Bautista is also good in his role, has the main henchman. Action scenes are alright, nothing too spectacular. Bond girls are alright, just kind of there.

There are moments that it does pay homage to other bond films, but it stands on it own.

'Spectre', much like 'Quantum of Solace', has to follow a game changing Bond film, and comes up short.

It's hard to say why. All the ingredients that made 'Skyfall' good are retained here, but the story never quite gels, the set pieces veer from silly to stupendous, and at the centre of it all we have Daniel Craig who looks a bit bemused (and dare I say bored) by it all.

The tone is off too. Ok, Craig is never going to be a pun heavy Bond like Roger Moore, but his delivery of the 'comedy' aspects is almost delivered through gritted teeth.

It's also a violent film indeed, how it was only a 12A is shocking. Eye gouging, suicide, torture- a trip to the cinema with the kids this was not.

It all makes for a muddled Bond film, that has now has its ending spoilt, because despite Craig saying he'd never return to the role, come Spring he's back again.

Can't wait after this...

Whether you like Daniel Craig as Bond or not, you can't deny he has been an integral part of the series' highest points. Casino Royale is one of the greatest action thrillers ever, let alone Bond movie, and Skyfall is right up there with Goldeneye as a quintessential Bond adventure. Following the magnificent Skyfall, Spectre had some huge shoes to fill, and for the most part, it delivers exactly what you'd expect. An attention-grabbing, tense opening fight scene, a lovely title sequence (whether the song is good is debatable), and an elaborate sinister plot surrounding James Bond that puts him up against his inner demons more than ever. Does it surpass Casino Royale or Skyfall? Definitely not, but as far as reintroducing the villainous organization SPECTRE into Bond canon after 40+ years, the film does more than a serviceable job, giving us a stylish action-adventure to boot.

SPECTRE is revealed to have been affiliated with some of Bond's biggest threats - Mr. White, Le Chiffre, Raoul Silva - all under the control of one puppeteer, the head of SPECTRE and James' archnemesis, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. It isn't much of a spoiler, as speculation was rampant ever since the first trailer (and hell, when the name of the movie was released). What's important is its execution, and Spectre leaves breadcrumbs for you to follow all the way through the belly of the beast. Not only is Bond under SPECTRE's crosshairs, but MI6 itself is experiencing a merger led by Max Denbeigh (Andrew Scott) who wants to eliminate the 00 division and focus solely on global intelligence. It's apparent early on that Blofeld has eyes everywhere, and while he works primarily in the shadows (Christoph Waltz only having 20 or so minutes of screen time), he poses a looming threat to Bond because of his sheer cunning and a past secret that unravels itself when the two finally meet.

Many parts of the film feel like a throwback to classic Bond. The icy environments, the car chase and gadgetry, the use of a massive threatening henchman, a train fight that is heavily reminiscent of From Russia With Love, and of course the modern birthing of Bond's greatest adversary. The acting all around is fantastic, with Craig continuing to impress as the suave womanizing secret agent. Thomas Newman turns in another wonderful musical score. But perhaps the most impressive feature is Sam Mendes' directing. The shots in this movie are absolutely gorgeous - the action scenes are incredible to watch and easy to follow, the landscapes are fresh and vibrant, and even the simplest of scenes - Bond and Blofeld walking up to each other for the first time - are quietly introspective yet palpably tense. Tension lingers throughout every moment of Spectre even when not much is happening, and the suspense is high enough to hold your interest for the full 2-and-a-half hours.

Spectre is not perfect. Much of what happens narratively is predictable, a few lines don't go over too well in context, and you eventually find something out about Blofeld that is pretty ridiculous taking previous Bond canon into account. Also, given Waltz's reputation for knocking villainous roles out of the park, he's noticeably underused here. But these flaws don't tarnish the pure entertainment value to be had. What you want in a James Bond movie is over-the-top action surrounding the world's greatest spy who's up against unbeatable odds yet still comes out on top thanks to his charisma and general badassery, and this is precisely what Spectre delivers. Daniel Craig may or may not return as Bond, and if he doesn't, this movie serves as a perfect send-off. But as the series constantly reminds us, "James Bond will return...," and Spectre is just another welcome chapter in the immense story of everybody's favorite super spy.

This movie is somewhat watchable if you manage to convince yourself that the hero is Ronald Bond, brother of the more famous and successful James Bond. Ronald of course, unlike his brother, is not the suave charmer and rascal type, but has more of a polish wrestler look and demeanor. This makes for some light comedy when Ronald is shown to be one of the few men that can't look smart and elegant wearing a suit, which incidentally only make him look more silly and distinctly out of place. Ronald also has to rely on fools luck more than skill and intelligence to save his ill conceived ways of handling things. At the start of the movie for instance, he manages to raze two entire blocks of houses whilst trying to perform the simple task of taking out a bad guy with a snipers rifle. Not only that, but he also manages to miss the intended target.

He then proceeds to chase said villain into a helicopter that takes off and flies around over a huge crowd of people. Unlike his brother James, who would simply have disposed of the bad guy and then asked the pilot to land at some convenient location, Ronald finds it a good idea to also try and take out the pilot at the same time although should he succeed, the heli would undoubtedly crash into the crowd. Fools luck saves him this time though.

We get another show of his ineptness later on when he escapes out of a window. Since the bad guys chasing him would have no option but to follow him the same route, his brother would undoubtedly just turned around, wait for them to exit and them pick them off one by one with his Beretta. Ronald here of course just continues running and tries to speed off in his car resulting in a car chase. Fortunately someone must have called in a bomb threat because the city, Rome, is almost completely devoid of people. I know this, because I have been in Rome, and there's people and cars everywhere.

Later on when a woman he has, like only an idiot can, fallen in love with at first site gets kidnapped by bad guys he proceeds to go after them in an aeroplane. His brother would of course just kept his distance, landed close to where the kidnappers cars stopped, and then snuck over to take care of business. Not so Ronald, he proceeds to attack them with the plane itself, seemingly without a plan. After failing miserably, as predicted, the plane crashes through a wood. Sheer luck however, not skill, eventually makes it so that he ends up at the same place as the baddies, most of them disposing of themselves in a crash, and thus lets him save the girl.

Ronalds plan for the end game has to be seen to be believed. After finding out somehow where the bad guy has his bad guy compound, Ronalds plan is simple; even though the villain knows his name, what he looks like and who he is, he will just go there, waltz right in, hope to be taken to the villain, tell him that he has come to kill him, and then do so. That's it, that's the whole plan. For some reason bringing a girl along also seems like a good idea.

The villain first does the obvious to thwart this "plan": send someone to dispose of this idiot en route. When this fails (on a train, incidentally also most likely bomb threatened, because like Rome before it, it's empty) this villain changes his mind for some reason, and instead of shooting the fool right in the face on sight when he arrives, proceeds to house him, give him a guided tour of his lair and then hit him over the head and torture him for a while whilst revealing some back story so ridiculous it must have had the writers rolling on the floor with laughter. One can't help wonder what Ronalds contingency plan was throughout all this.

The plot on it's whole is incomprehensible and stupid, apparently all the intelligence agencies in the world are about to pool into one giant data base that NONE of all the experts that thus must have been involved, with all their vast resources, have managed to find out is controlled by the bad guy. Incidentally, on the plus side, the bad guy also turns out to be an idiot who makes it only through luck. (watch how he miraculously survives not only the explosion of a hand grenade type watch (don't ask) thrown at him, but also the explosion of his whole bad guy hideout. (no explanation is of course given as to how he managed this) There's a fun sequence near the end that can only work if we assume that said bad guy spent some time printing out Ronald Bonds passport photo, as well as those of various friends and colleagues of his, and spent what must have been a considerable amount of time walking around a building taping these up presumable to unnerve Ronald when he arrives there. He also apparently went out to buy a spray can so the could spray "Bond" and an arrow on the wall. The latter implies that his plan actually hinged on the certainty that Bond would escape from the henchmen that captured him earlier on. There is however nothing that shows that the henchmen were intended to let him go so that he could reach this target, so why anyone would bother with the printing, spraying and taping when the odds of Ronald Bond actually getting there are extremely slim, is any ones guess.

All great fun though but watching James Bonds brother clown and clumsy his way through an adventure like this makes one long for an actual James Bond movie, it has been too long!

I am delighted to announce that the James Bond franchise is very much alive despite the deathly subject at the beginning of the film.

The plot, cast, action sequences are all top notch. I've seen several espionage films in 2015 including Kingsman, Mission Impossible 5 and The Man From U. N. C. L. E. And this film beats them all.

The title reveals that the SPECTRE organisation is the main backdrop to the film.

Perhaps other forces that shame the Guardian newspaper and its David Snowden whistleblower expose are shamed?

Nods are made not only to the series 50 year past (a bone crunching fight sequence between Bond and a muscular henchman aboard a train reminds me of From Russia With Love and The Spy Who Loved Me) but to the Craig rebooted films themselves. (Casino Royale, Quantum Of Solace and Skyfall).

The theme song, long a staple of these films is a disappointment. Sung by Sam Smith it just doesn't do it.

Daniel Craig has been criticised for his perceived lack of humour as James Bond. He rectifies this in this film with some excellent one liners.

Director Sam Mendes has brought another excellent film to the screen.

The supporting cast 'regulars', Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes and Naomie Harris put in excellent performances and add to the Craig performance.

New characters add to the atmosphere including Andrew Scott and ex wrestler Dave Bautista.

The film holds the record for the longest running Bond film (as of 2015!) at approximately 148 minutes. To be honest when you are engrossed in the film this isn't noticeable.

The film makes the first attempt at stranding together the Daniel Craig films exhibiting previous adventures in the credits sequence and introducing the SPECTRE organisation with head Ernst Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) who has family ties to Bond?

Skyfall was superb so this had a lot to live up to and it doesn't.

There are so many loopholes; Q was afraid of heights so how can he go in ski lift, London is very busy day and night so how can a helicopter crash into a bridge next to the houses of parliament when it is deserted, how does a car drive up a snow covered steep mountain side without skidding, why do the walls of railway carriages brake up like pieces of flimsy cardboard during a fight ? Etc.

Then there is the quite gratuitous violence ( i.e. gouging a man's eyes out.) Plus the ridiculous shoot outs where Bond fells 50 other gunmen who all seem to be very poor shots.

Which brings me to the plot - what plot ? This was so convoluted that it seems to have been made up as they went along. I had enough after the first hour but wanted to see how it ended - poorly.

This film compares very poorly to either Hit-man or Bourne; Sam Mendies seems now to be the director to avoid.

I am sure this film will make a fortune but as the saying goes "If million people like a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing."

If there was anything we learnt from 'Skyfall' it's that Sam Mendes can make a damn good Bond film, veering away from the over-the-top, explosive nature of the franchise, and focusing more on Bond's personal life and his vulnerability. Well what can be said? He did it again.

'Spectre' will definitely appeal more to those who were fans of the early films in the franchise, most notably 'You Only Live Twice' whose inspiration brings back one of the finest villains to ever face Bond. Mendes has since seemed to take a new direction on Craig's series of films and led away from the gritty, thriller aspect that 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' had and instead propelled the film as an action spectacle, full of beautifully orchestrated stunts, stunning cinematography and non-stop explosive action. The locations are stunning, the score is exhilarating and the cinematography from Hoyte Van Hoytema is dazzling.

Christoph Waltz and Dave Bautista, whoever the casting director was on this film, you deserve a huge pat on the back, this film stars two of the most perfect actors to plays villains ever. The much-loved Austrian Waltz whose Colonel Hans Landa has earned him recognition as a fantastic and plausible villain, and ex-wrestler Bautista proving that he is one person not to screw with.

'Spectre' manages to reflect back upon its predecessors in the franchise with references to prior villains, allies and lovers, further drawing upon a story that was in need of a conclusion, a conclusion all fans just couldn't wait for. But... will 'Spectre' be the conclusion we expected? Or will there be more to follow from Daniel Craig and 007?

Obviously you don't have to take my word for it, I'm just a mega- Bond fan, but allow me to shed some light upon it if you are having a hard time deciding whether to see it or not? I went and saw this in IMAX - I was blown away. This is the ultimate British action film and one of the finest instalments!

Let's be honest, here. The dead is indeed alive. It's nice to see the words, Spectre come back from the dead, after a 40 year absence from the franchise. It has been way too long. The reason for this, is that when 1961's novel 'Thunderball', was being made; original James Bond author, Ian Fleming opt for some help from his friends, such as screenwriter, Kevin McClory & some others to make a film version of it. Only to screw them from writing credit, when the film script version was completed in 1964. This lead, to a long legal battle, between McClory & Fleming, until McClory won out, in 1976; retained the filming rights of the novel. With that deal, came the lost, at least ten previous own literary properties & titles. One of them, happen to be the Spectre Organization in which, James Bond fight against in the novel, Thunderball. Once, considered as a future James Bond title in the 1960s & 1980s, Spectre wasn't made into a movie, until November 2013, when Eon Production and McClory's estate formally settled the issue. This allow, MGM, Eon Production's mother company to acquire the full copyright film rights to the concept of Spectre and all of the characters associated with. Still, the production for this film was troublesome. First off, the movie went, highly over-budget, and over-schedule. Many of these problems, came from the fact, that Sony demanded rewrites after a 2014 email hack. They really want to cover up, and recon the leak spoilers, even beyond when filming started. This cause, the movie to have a very incredibly underwhelming and at times, nonsensical third act. I have to say, its shows. The main plot of James Bond (Daniel Craig) trying to unravel, a new terrorist organization, doesn't match, well, with the sub-plot of M (Ralph Fiennes) trying to stop, his government from creating, a unified New World Order surveillance network. It was very uneven. I also get that the movie takes place 18 months, after the events of 2012's Skyfall, but it really seem, like all the flaws that James Bond had, in the last movie, is non-existence in this film. It's really odd, how he can barely hit his target in the last movie, and now, he's has the power of improbably aiming skills. It's so jarring. What happen to all of his weaknesses? For an action movie, this is probably, the weakest in the Daniel Craig's James Bond series of films. There are way too much, badly done, CGI effects. It's always stale, when we see the same, repetitive action. Most of all, lots of bad guys just standing around, talking and making idiotic decision making. Still, they did, get some hits on Bond. Sad, the whole torturing scene isn't one of them. I didn't like the whole, non-selling. It was a bit confusing on what the hell, was going on! However, I do like the demolition scene that the villains plan. Still, the filming process must have been extremely miserable for both the returning director, Sam Mendes & main actor, Daniel Craig. There has been times, when, Craig had joked that he would rather slit his wrists than play 007 again, and Mendes threating to leave, the production. However, I guess, cooler heads prevails, because they were able to pull, the movie, off. It was far from being a total disaster! In my opinion, the movie that has James Bond's first encounter with the global criminal organization, Spectre, since 1971's Diamonds Are Forever was mostly alright to me. I have only a few problems with it. First off, the movie length. It's a really strained watch. Since, the movie does have some slow & often clichés parts, you really feel, the long runtime. Still, the movie does have a lot more, humor than the previous Daniel Craig's films. I like, how the writers were a lot more open to a lot of old school Bond mannerism. It's nice to see that side of Bond, again. Also, I do love the cool references to the older films. Great homages. I also like, how Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) & Q (Ben Whishaw) are given, more to do, than minor background characters. Some of the best scenes, are with those characters. However, this movie is missing the emotional drive. The chemistry between Bond and his main love-interest, Dr. Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux) is questionable at best, due to the age different. I really found, their love-affair, kinda forced. While Seydoux was alright as eye-candy. Her acting, not so much. Her French accent is a little distracting. I kinda wish, the minor, bond girl, that Monica Bellucci plays, had a bigger role in the plot. After all, Daniel Craig indeed love, working with her, the most. She might be 50, but she's still gorgeous. Christoph Waltz as the villain, Franz Oberhauser AKA Ernst Stavro Blofeld did a great job at being the charming host/criminal psychopath. I also didn't mind, Dave Batista's minor role as the henchmen. However, I kinda, wish, he had more lines. There was a lot of grief over Sam Smith's new Bond song: "Writing on the Wall, but it sounded grand and a fitting Bond song over the credits. It's not amazing, but sure it's better than a lot of other recent efforts like Madonna. I just didn't like the weird octopus porn opening, but I did dig, the Día de los Muertos opening with Thomas Newman's score. Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema did ensures that Mexico City are never less than ravishing. Don't care, if they got taxation benefits, because of that, but I didn't, how the movie travels from one exotic location to another. It was too much! Too hard to keep, track of it. Overall: While, it fails to pack the emotional punch. Spectre is 007 out of 10. It's still worth seeing.

"Spectre" is the newest entry to the long-running and successful James Bond franchise. It is Daniel Craig's fourth turn as the world's most famous agent and the second time for Sam Mendes as director. The movie takes place basically right after the end of "Skyfall" and there are several references back to this third Daniel Craig Bond film, but also to the two films before that, mostly about Vesper Lynd, but also about LeChiffre. Judi Dench has a brief scene as M again and we find out what happened to Mr. White. But now that I mentioned M, let's elaborate a bit on that. Ralph Fiennes is back in the role and he is a very different M than all the ones before him. He actually keeps firing and fighting, something you totally wouldn't expect if you knew these characters from the old movies sitting behind their desk from 9 to 5 or longer. Then again, Fiennes' M has some kind of military background if I remember "Skyfall" correctly.

The female main character is played by French actress Léa Seydoux and well, what can I say about her? I think she is a good actress and has stunning looks and I can totally see Bond falling for her. She looks breathtaking in this film, almost as good as in "La belle et la bête". The acting is above-par for Bond girls usually and she is doing a fine job with her character. Still, there are incongruences. She decides to leave Bond as she cannot live with another assassin, but quickly changes her mind, which destroys a strong farewell scene. And in the end, Bond chooses her and decides not to kill Blofeld and he says to Q that he is gone. Second time Craig's Bond is deeply in love with Vesper Lynd being the first of course (let's just ignore Tracy), and I wonder how they will elaborate on that story line. I hope she won't get killed early in the next Bond film, but I guess they somehow have to come up with a story to get her out of the picture for Bond to return to MI6. It will be quite a challenge to make this one credible and not too similar to Lynd's. If I hadn't known that Craig will return, this actually could have been a very nice ending to his turn as James Bond with Blofeld finally not being able to take Bond's most precious.

I briefly mentioned Blofeld above and he is played by Christoph Waltz. I must say I like him as an actor, but by now, he feels very similar with his mannerisms in totally different characters he plays. His characters always have their very own brand of humour and it would actually be nice to see him as a completely serious character at some point. I found his Blofeld not as interesting as Mikkelsen's LeChiffre or Bardem's Silva, which is quite a pity as they tried so hard to make him more memorable with him being the head of Spectre of course and also with the whole brother story. Waltz' "cuckoo" was even a bit cringeworthy during their talk. The scene with Bond tied up in the chair and Blofeld acting like some psychopath scientist was really creepy though, almost a touch of "Marathon Man". And of course of Connery's Goldfinger almost losing his balls to Auric's laser in this classic movie back then.

Let's talk a bit about the henchmen: Wrestling legend Dave Bautista plays a character who does not really add something great to the story and does not even make sense. He comes into the room, kills apparently a high-profile aide of Blofeld and is still appreciated. I guess this was intended to show what a cold-blooded killer he is. But wasn't he intended to perform the stadium attack in Mexico City? This was completely forgotten for the rest of the film. Still, he was fun and his final fight with Bond (and Swann) was a nice addition to the long history of memorable train fight sequences in Bond films. Generally, he had nice presence. Calling him a modern Jaws would be too much honor (Jaws would have survived falling out of the train for sure), but he was fine overall and they did great in letting him be quiet. That emphasized his cold-blooded ruthless character.

"Sherlock" fans will appreciate the presence of Andrew Scott here. However, I must say that I did not find him too memorable. There is no denying he is a talented actor, but everything he did here he already did on "Sherlock" and not worse. Monica Bellucci was okay in her scene and shows us that Bond also has a weakness for older women. Ben Whishaw I remember not liking too much in previous films, but he was fine here as well. I am not yet too sure about the theme song this time, but it's probably not among my favorites.

All in all, this was a good movie and I highly recommend going to a theater to see it on a big screen, not on a small computer screen. Then again, I am probably biased because of how big a fan of the franchise I am. I think it's worse than "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall", but better than "Quantum of Solace". One reason may be that the two I liked more have legendary locations, the ones in the title, and this one and "Quantum of Solace" do not. As a whole, this was not a great Bond film unfortunately, but a pretty good one with some nice inclusions and references to older films (Blofeld's scar). I certainly recommend the watch, but I still hope that the next Bond film (with or without Mendes) will be truly great again.

Okay, adding some stuff in December 2021 here: First of all, I really love Sam Smith's theme song by now. It has grown on me a lot and I am truly happy for him that he got the Oscar for it too. I think they also should have used it more frequently during the fim. I mean the tune, the melody, not the voice of course. That would have been too much. It also worked so well with the intro and these faces from the past. What else? Oh yeah, the drilling scene is truly scary. I know I mentioned this in my original review already, but I found it truly haunting when watching today, especially the sound. I also mentioned the scene in which Bond decides not to kill Blofeld and this I liked because it was simply a nice reference way back to M's words how an agent with a licence to kill also has a licence to not kill. And nobody would have blamed Bond really if he had killed Blofeld there. Also interesting parallel compared to the beginning when we see what happens if Bond is inside a helicopter and in the end when Bond' main antagonist is inside a helicopter. The thought on how trains have played a role in previous Bond films came to my mind again too. Pretty memorable fight and also kinda fitting for the two lovebirds to have their first real romantic encounter. Whishaw's Q also made me smile a bit here and there I can't deny, especially in his earlier scenes. We don't really find out what happens next to Bellucci's character as she is out of the picture quickly, but I personally would have preferred to see more from Sigman's character. She is the one we see very early on. Despite Seydoux's stunning presence and increased screen time towards the end, I liked the first half of this film maybe more. Her being taken prisoner by Blofeld was still a solid inclusion and the conflict the antagonist poses to Bond reminded me a bit of one with the Joker in Nolan's Batman movie, but that's an entirely different story. Ah yes, I must also mention the beautiful snow-covered landscapes in this film here. Incredibly nice to look at and I can see why Swann (fitting name with her dad being called White) tells Bond to not get distracted by the view. His reaction there was also not bad and funny and charming and insightful at the same time. We knew right away that there we have the key love interest of this movie. And not just this in fact.

In addition to the nature, it can be said that while in most departments it felt more like a modern Bond film, the idea of all kinds of locations from all over the planet is a nice one. We have Mexico at the start. We have a great deal of the Alps. We have Italy. There's even an ounce of South Africa. I think this is how it should be in pretty much every Bond movie. Of course, Bond gets around nicely, so he is even implanted a chip for his boss to be able to track him whenever he creates chaos and sinks the next priceless prototype car into a river. Still the chip idea is pretty scary. Closer to reality in 2021 than people might have thought over five years ago. But let's not get into this. Ralph Fiennes deserves a few more mentions, like how early on you could think that Bond would become the main antagonist to Scott's character, but in fact it's Fiennes eventually with the two leader figures' very different ideas of how MI6 should be run. Traditional values, still with the help of modern aspects, against a completely new concept. You know of course who/what will prevail. I must say nonetheless that I did not expect a life-or-death scenario between those two. Comedy is like most of the time with Bond, especially with Craig's Bond, a rarity. Actually, in the old Bond films, especially Moore's, there were quite a few scenes and quotes that could make you laugh. Here there are virtually none. Q I mentioned already and it's not just what he says, but also for example the awkwardness of how he is sitting up there with this weird fella in the mountains and how he always carries around his laptop. Bautista's character's final words were also intended as a bit of comic relief I suppose, but there's really not much more. However, it was of course about Bond at the center of it, but how the other characters are included and even feel like a little gang at some point trying to come to Bond's rescue was a bit strange. Not sure if I liked it. He did not need them anyway. Craig's Bond is such a lone wolf, probably even more than everybody before him. Okay, that is it then. Just a few more additional throughts from my rewatch. I still think that now after Craig's departure from the 007 universe, this fourth of his five films deserves to be seen, even if it is definitely not a contender for his best. Thumbs-up.

'The dead are alive' is a forewarning that has dual implications. Agent 007 has gone rogue and is in Mexico City in the midst of the 'day of the dead' festivities as he keenly follows M's last order. In the vibrant city center, he pursues the masked assassin in a lengthy single shot that leads him to a hotel rooftop from where he executes his mission. A building blows up as a result and soon the action leads to a thrilling helicopter sequence that disperses the crowd of thousands while the agent engages in a physical combat inside the barrel rolling chopper. 'Spectre' is what some fans of this franchise have been waiting for since 'Casino Royale', which still remains Daniel Craig's best take on the secret agent. While Spectre might be campy and incredulous in parts akin to Bond of prior generations, it still retains some of the darkness and grimness of Sam Mendes' 'Skyfall' and with a lot more entertainment. This is a formulaic Bond film that maintains an efficient dose of gadgets, car chases, stunts, females, tailored suits and gorgeous locales. Bond is back in action.

MI6's 'OO' program is on the verge of being shut down because of C (Andrew Scott)'s digital initiative that will render the secret agents obsolete. With the threat of drones and spycrafts taking over British Intelligence, M (Ralph Fiennes) must rely on Bond's intelligence gathering about the secret organization that links the multiple threats across the world before C's cameras take over global security. After seeking out the assassin Sciarra's widow (Monica Belluci) and probing her about the organization, Bond gains entry to a top secret meeting where Blofeld (Christopher Waltz) is revealed to him as the head of Spectre. Bond, in the Aston Martin DB10 that he stole from the Quartermaster at MI6 is chased by the intimidating assassin Mr. Hinx (Bautista) whose Jaguar C- X75 unleashes itself onto the deserted streets of Rome. This is a thrilling car chase that is even more appealing because of the ravishing concept cars. Further clues lead Bond to Mr. White in Austria who has been paying the price for betraying Blofeld. His final plea to Bond is to protect his daughter Madeline (Lea Seydoux) who can get him closer to Blofeld's lair. Upon meeting Madeline, Bond has yet another chase involving Hinx in a Land Rover and himself in a plane. Together with Q (Ben Whishaw), who ventured on field for the first time, they discover their next lead in Morocco where they encounter Hynx yet again in the train that leads them to the Spectre facility. Bond's capture and confrontation with Blofeld involves a rather contrived sub-plot that not only links all of Bond's past villains but also Spectre's link with C's surveillance initiative. Then there's the bit about James' childhood and Blofeld's true identity as Oberhauser. Suddenly, James Bond has an origin story that we didn't really need but will have to endure so he can plan his escape. The film's climax in London swings between the surveillance program's launch and the explosion of the former MI6 headquarters with Bond stuck in it and Oberhauser seeking a timely escape.

Whether or not Spectre justifies why Daniel Craig's James Bond has been living alone in the shadows, hunting and being hunted throughout his adventures, it does mark a triumphant return of the agent we have been entertained by for decades. Craig's rough and intense Bond was a refreshing take on Ian Fleming's character and he still retains the suave and composure. This Bond will maintain a serious countenance after narrowly escaping death instead of kissing the nearest woman he can find while smiling away into the closing credits. He is indisputably, the best James Bond. Christopher Waltz makes a sinister villain with his power and conniving plans. However, one does wish for more intellectual confrontations with him. Simply put, Lea Seydoux is more than what Olga Kurylenko could be as a Bond girl and far less than what Eva Green was. Ben Whishaw has more fun being Q who is more often in a state of disbelief as to Bond's actions. Naomie Harris' Moneypenny is very likable because she is more than just a secretary to M while assisting Bond through his secret missions. Andrew Scott makes evil look so much cooler and Ralph Fiennes shows his maturity playing M, whose agency is on the verge of being shut down completely.

James Bond's return to form doesn't come without the spectacular action scenes and Spectre has quite a few of them. Apart from one of the best opening sequences, the car chase through Rome, the airplane-SUV chase in Austria, the raw physical fight in the Moroccan train and the climactic closure in London make this among the more satisfying Bond films in recent times. Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hotytema does a stunning job with the vistas and the action sequences to engage the audience.

Director Sam Mendes unnecessarily tries to create massive story-arcs that span 4 films. Adding to that, he attempts to weigh in on Bond's steely personality by giving him a back-story that almost turned him into Bruce Wayne. Were it not for Mendes paying tribute to the Broccolis, we would've had an even darker take on Bond than Skyfall. The worst of it all though, is Sam Smith's opening credits song which is creepily visualized and overly sluggish for a Bond theme. Yet, all these drawbacks shouldn't take away from the entertainment that Spectre offers as an old- fashioned Bond adventure with a serious, contemporary storyline. Each time things get worse, with the out of control helicopter, the Aston Martin dangerously close to the canal, the airplane losing its wings and the MI6 building just seconds away from imploding, Bond regains control with the coolness and composure that only this MI6 agent could own. Welcome back 007.

8.221 on a scale of 1-10.

I haven't been the biggest fan of the Daniel Craig James Bond films, but "Spectre", while flawed, is my favorite of his four on the whole. It's the first one that pits Bond against a villain of his own stature and a henchman of superior strength, the first one that makes him look vulnerable or like he's in any danger. It's also more jam-packed with action and less heavy on the psychodrama than the overrated "Skyfall"; psychoanalysis is still there, but done in a more discreet way (like in the scene where Bond is "interrogating" a mouse). There are flaws: an atrocious title song, an underdeveloped love story, some illogical moments. But there are also some great scenes, like Bond landing on a couch, the train fight, or the final three minutes which really do bring Craig's Bond full-circle and send you out of the theater with a big grin on your face. The cast is terrific (Craig is rather blasè in this one, but also more relaxed than usual), and I wouldn't mind seeing some key players of this film return in Bond 25. All in all, an entertaining Bond epic. *** out of 4.

As this, the forth of the Daniel Craig era Bond films opens we find Bond in Mexico City on the Day of the Dead. The camera tracks a man in a skeleton costume as he, and the woman he is with, walk through the crowd and into a hotel; the man removes his mask to reveal that he is in fact Bond. He excuses himself and goes for a rooftop walk. He then watches two men talking in the building opposite before opening fire… moments later the building explodes! The target, Marco Sciarra, escapes with Bond in pursuit; he catches up with him just as he scrambles aboard a helicopter and a fight to the death ensues over the crowded Zocolo Square.

After the credits Bond is back in London where M reprimands him for his unofficial operation in Mexico before telling him that their department is to be amalgamated into MI5 under the leadership of a man Bond insists on calling 'C'. C believes that the OO section is obsolete; the future of intelligence will involve intercepting communications and drones… to this end he intends to create 'Nine Eyes' a group of nine nations that will share all such data. Bond is told to stay in London but inevitable doesn't. We learn that the previous M had sent a posthumous message to Bond telling him to kill Sciarra then go to his funeral. Here, in Rome, he meets the dead man's wife and learns that he was part of a secret criminal organisation.

Over the course of his investigation he learns that this organisation is known as SPECTRE and it has somehow been behind the events in the previous three films. He also learns that more than one person he assumed was dead is in fact alive; including the head of SPECTRE Franz Oberhauser; somebody he knew as a child but now calls himself Ernst Stavro Blofeld! As with all Bond films there is a Bond Girl and this one is Madeleine Swann, the daughter of SPECTRE member Mr. White who is being targeted for assassination by the group.

At two and a half hours in length this is one of the longer Bond films but at no time did I find myself wondering how much longer it would be going on. The viewer is immediately gripped in the opening scene, which appears to be one long tracking shot. We then get an explosion, chase and finally a fight in a helicopter… all before the opening credits! From then on we get a number of great set-pieces including car chases, Bond rescuing Madeleine from would-be abductors as he chases their cars in a plane and numerous fights and shootouts. While the action is great there is also a solid story that nicely links back to the previous three films and (re) introduces the most famous of Bond villains in a way that gives him some back story. The cast does a fine job; Daniel Craig is on top form as Bond, a role he has made his own; while we instinctively know he will prevail there are moments where he makes us believe his character is in real and imminent danger. Christoph Waltz is suitable villainous as Blofeld, Andrew Scott is delightfully unpleasant as C and Léa Seydoux makes a fine Bond Girl as Madeleine Swann. Talking of Bond Girls it was nice to see Monica Bellucci as Sciarra's widow… showing that you don't have to be young to be sexy. Dave Bautista was also rather fun as the thuggish assassin Mr. Hinx; his stature and lack of time for small talk reminded me of the character Jaws from the Roger Moore era but without the campness… he even got a brilliant send-off that was clearly a nod to the film 'Jaws'!

Amid the action there are some scenes that may disturb some viewers; including an eye-gouging and Bond being tortured. This is balanced by plenty of humour though; most notably Bond's car that doesn't have all the weaponry loaded as he expected. There has been talk of this being Craig's last Bond film, while I hope that is not the case, the conclusion would make a fitting conclusion to his time as Bond. Overall a really fine entry to the Bond series; up there with the best.

This was my most anticipated film of the year as I have really enjoyed Daniel Craig's turn as Bond and this film was going to feature the return of the villainous Spectre organization. I had been wanting them to come back since Quantum of Solace kind of hinted they were lurking in the shadows. So it is with a bit of regret that the film was underwhelming. Had the villains in the piece not been referred to as the organization that plagued Bond's first six out of seven films and produced so many cool villains, I may not of had the problems with the film I did. However, I just thought this film should have been a super awesome thrill ride that did not let up until the credits began to roll. It does not do this, not even close. Still, it was a good film and it seemed to mark Daniel Craig's last turn as Bond which would be kind of sad seeing as how it is set up so nicely now with Ralph Fiennes as M, a Q and a Moneypenny in place. I would hate for them to start over again, but I am afraid that is exactly what they will do as they introduce yet another actor to play the role.

The story has Bond trying to kill a dangerous man, but he is not under orders from the current M, rather he has received a message from an old friend telling him to not only kill this individual, but to attend his funeral. 007 is placed on what is essentially suspension; however, with the help of Moneypenny and Q he is able to attend the funeral and uncover a ruthless organization known as Spectre. Now Bond must uncover this group's secrets before they grip the world in their hands!

It had potential and I liked how they tied the films together for the most part, but I just thought the film should have been bigger considering the Spectre organization being in it and Blofeld. By bigger, I do not mean the running time, it was plenty long enough! There was just too much bloat in this one and the action seemed to get weaker as the film progressed rather than more exciting. Blofeld was okay, but I hate that they felt the need to tie him to Bond in some significant way as it is almost an absurd relationship they share. I liked Batista as the henchman, but I would have liked to have seen more henchmen like this. Most of the group was indistinct, while Batista's character stood out, perhaps a super martial arts master and a super shot villain could have been added? At times the organization looked intimidating and the film ready to take off, then they are easily taken down and the headquarters destroyed and one computer nerd is able to disable their entire plan while Blofeld's army seems reduced to like five people and a helicopter. It reminded me how Silva looked like he had an incredible group of people behind him, then in the last part of the film he seemed significantly less imposing.

As much as I am complaining, I did enjoy the film. Craig is a rather good Bond and I liked the story all right and the action was pretty good even though it seemed to weaken as the film progressed. I think they should have done a couple of things differently in this one to make Craig's last turn as Bond more spectacular, but Connery's last film, Diamonds are Forever, I find to be his weakest and Moore's was not his strongest either in A View to a Kill. Both were good, just not that particular stars best Bond. This one was good too, just not Craig's strongest Bond film. Also, congratulations go to Madonna as she no longer holds the title of worst Bond opening song ever anymore. That Sam Smith tune was horrid and also congrats on weirdest credit sequence ever, if they had shown much more of the octopus and the woman the film could have been a hard R!

It's hard to dislike any of the entries that have Daniel Craig, the man with the rugged look and damaged psyche but who is able to wear and execute the necessary outfits, tasks, and gadgets of the 007 program. It's this program that is in danger of disappearing. It feels at times as if this is the conclusion of the entire series. Where does it go? It has explored outer space, underwater, and just about every exotic land in the world, but now it has all come together, and Mr. Bond has a long list of scores to settle with some ghosts of his past (hinted at in "Skyfall").

We have a new "M", and it's not easy getting used to the new Moneypennies and Q's, but they're capable and likable, and we will grow used to them because they have been modernized and given a bit more room than the classic roles they're based on. Moneypenny goes goes beyond flirting into breaking the rules for her "boss". Q is definitely more expressive and as frustrated as ever when Bond can't seem to understand the proper administration of the new toys.

In this chapter, Bond is again going rogue and trying to save the world and heal his soul as he puts together the various elements of what led him to become 007. He might not like what he'll find. However, we are certain to have a ball as he demolishes entire blocks and buildings in several parts of the world. We don't have jets, but helicopters come alive and do very well here. The segment in Mexico City certainly is a lot of fun, though those crowds were a little unaware of the show in the sky.

Bond proves in this chapter that he has a big heart, and that he is beginning to show his vulnerabilities. He the knight who comes to conquer and save the damsels in distress, though he's reminded by his long lost "brother" that he does leave a trail of broken hearts and destruction wherever he goes.

I enjoyed how this film is a bit on the old-fashioned side, giving us car chases, fist fights, and a bit of technology without drowning us in techno babble or going crazy with the effects. There is more time for drama, and points are made very clear as to who is who and where they come from. The relationships between the main heroes/heroines and enemies is quite fascinating, enough to send all of them into some serious therapy.

Tribute is paid to a lot of what has made Bond such an icon, from the gorgeous long-hair feline, to the classic Astin Martin, to some of the gorgeous ladies who participate in the many adventures of our hero. Belucci represents the classic beauty, and we have the new generation who is able to use a gun and dress with plenty of style. We get that overgrown terrifying killer who appears unstoppable and will present Bond with one of his biggest challenges.

All in all, the film is a lot of fun, a bit long, but never boring.

This is the first James Bond film I have seen with Craig in it. I liked some of the old classics, but did not think that Bond brand should continue forever. I saw this one because I read somewhere that there was some spectacular scenes from a "Day of the dead"parade in Mexico in it. And I was not disappointed, just these scenes alone were worth the price of admission for me. I have to admit that I hate to watch violence, so I spent quite some time in the movie not watching. But I also laughed on several occasions, some of the Bond brand is so retro and it took me back a few decades. I enjoyed the trip around the world and was entertained, but for the fight scenes. Obviously they cannot come up with new ideas to improve the Aston Martin, so this time the car was mainly good for a long and sometimes spectacular chase. Spectacular were also the helicopter stunts. I like Craig, but in my mind Sean Connery will always be 007.

James Bond (Daniel Craig) followed the previous M's instruction to kill Marco Sciarra. He only shows the message to Moneypenny (Naomie Harris). This leads to an embarrassing Mexico City incident for the new M (Ralph Fiennes) who suspends Bond. M is organizing a merger with MI-5 and C (Andrew Scott) is creating surveillance system "Nine Eyes" looking to shut down "00". Bond steals a car from Q (Ben Whishaw) to attend Sciarra's funeral where he meets his wife Lucia (Monica Bellucci). Using the stolen Sciarra ring, Bond infiltrates a Spectre meeting headed by Blofeld (Christoph Waltz). Dr. Madeline Swann (Léa Seydoux) is the daughter of a murdered Spectre agent and key to bringing down the organization.

With the return of Spectre, I was hoping for a great villain to take his place among the greats of Bond villains. Waltz barely gets up in his first scene and takes forever to return. He's a missed opportunity for a supervillain. Andrew Scott is the sleazy weasel but he's not that guy. This movie is exceedingly cool and filled with sharp action. It's missing something. It's missing greatness. It's missing the great memorable thing. The movie is sometimes a little slow with long expositions. The audience don't really need it. They already know who the bad guys are. They just need Bond to catch up and find them. This is a fine Bond movie but one that may be forgotten among the rest.

Before I unload my barrage of critique against this film I would like to first state something. Whenever I watch a movie, and I have so many issues with it, I will take a step back and ask myself for what it is, is it at least a good action movie? The answer is no, it is not.

Good things about the movie:

High production quality and some good visuals / The intro sequence before the helicopter

**SPOILERS BELOW** -AVERT YOUR EYES!-

Problems with the movie:

1) You kill a bad guy, bad guys organization wants to kill the wife cause she's a loose end, Bond prevents the assassins, she finds out Bond killed her husband, then... she sleeps with him immediately. What? Sure she didn't love her husband but with all the stuff going down and after a powerful organization sends 2 assassins they have time to take a break and get busy? (possibly Assassins come in pairs and more arrive only after 30 minutes enough time to shag)

2) WASTED TALENT.

2a) Christoph Waltz. Such a great actor, with a horrible script. At the beginning they make him out to be a bada$$ in the shadows requiring to whisper things to underlings who then announce it to the rest of the group at a meeting. But then he randomly talks on his own because he can, and even has time to say hello to Mr. Bond in the crowd just as Bond realizes he's been caught, and manages to escape bumbling security guards. They attempted to make Waltz' character this mastermind who I was never afraid of, and he wasn't that menacing. For the leader of one of the most powerful organizations his master plans came off weak and his ruthlessness tame.

2b) Dave Bautista. They used him pretty good with his introduction and a fight scene in the movie, but the car chase scene was horrible. Bond was essentially talking to moneypenny on the phone about bad guys rap sheets while Bautista's character was chasing him down in a car (but he was more following Bond then attempting to shoot him or run him off the road). At one point during the chase scene Bautista pulls up next to bond and is looking at Bond and their eyes meet up... and nothing happens Bond pulls ahead. Is this a love story between two men or is this a bada$$ car chase scene where the bad guy is trying run him off the road/pound him into the ground?

3) This film has max level cheese that at times I could have sworn this movie was written by Bollywood writers. I don't mind a decent amount of cheese, but if you're piling it on and the expiry date shows 10 years ago there's a problem. 3a) Helicopter intro Scene 3b) save the girl or building blows up scene 3c) Bonds helicopter chasing vehicle convoy

4) Boring car chase and fight scenes (with camera tricks to make it look more epic which i'm not a fan of and its as bad as lens flares)

5) Bond falls in love with a woman he hardly knows (it didn't feel believable) but that's OK because he's ready to leave his life as a spy

6) The story felt all over the place, and at times Bond is purposely made to look weak and suddenly drinks a RedBull and tears it up 007 style. I didn't really connect with a lot of the characters either.

7) The instant you saw Bond towering over the enemy at the end you already knew he wasn't going to do anything they gave you obvious clues earlier on through M thats how it was going to play out.

I couldn't even disconnect myself from the flaws just to enjoy it as an action movie since it was overall boring. If you can't connect with the story, 2.5 hours is way too long for a few flashy scene's.

"To liars and killers. To liars and killers everywhere." It's official. Sam Mendes is the only person who does immaculate refined justice to Bond. It is so great to see him handle such colossal projects. Three years ago, he had done a similar job of primping and preening the Bond who was jackhammered into the debris of Solace. With the right kind of posture, demeanour and mien, he had in his mind for a Bond of our dreams, Mendes' protagonist soared to an unimaginable level. So he created Bond, a man with the right words, the right class and the right air. The depth in his eyes when he was seeking love, the fearless fluent proclamations he bore on his lips when he faced his enemies, his unique flamboyant flair, and the way he walked adjusting his cuffs. Ooh! So filled with pizazz! Daniel Craig hit a home run with every minute detail that was asked of him. He will stand tall as one of the best Bonds to have ever walked on the big screen.

Writers of Spectre do a fair job of revisiting the forgotten by punching in faces from the past to shake up an already stirred Bond. Okay, so that rarely happened in the movie. Craig looked more focused, fearless and relentless than ever.

It is one of the most realistic movies to have ever existed in the Bond saga. Even whilst Bond shoots the pawns of Blofeld, he sits, crouches and aims before shooting taking into account the distance factor, which seems quite plausible as compared to the past Bond movies. He has a story to unfurl which moves at quite an interesting pace. (I don't know why some found it lengthy!) Christoph Waltz is brilliant as Blofeld too. His villainy is soothing, calm and yet reeks of perversion. He has a bad-ass voice that he carries brilliantly throughout his ephemeral act.

We have a side plot led by Andrew Scott which runs parallel to the story. Mendes tries really hard to juggle both the stories and endeavours to hold them in the same basket, but barely manages to succeed at that. Somehow I feel Mendes could have done a better job weaving it more brilliantly.

SPOILERS AHEAD: There are extremely beautiful bits in the movie that come to my mind when I think of it. Like the one where Bond wakes up to the silencing commotion of a mouse. He points the gun at it and says, "Who are you working for?" I think watching Bond sandwiched between M and Swann was brilliantly shot. It was quite poetic if you really look at it. At one side, there were "saving-the-world-shoes" to fill, whilst at the other end there was freedom and the love of his life was gawking at him with hopeful eyes. Right at the middle, the author of his pain asks him to shoot him. As Swann had said before life gives you choices. Bond was faced with a choice to kill and not to kill, and of course, to choose a side. To Blofeld's beseeching command to kill him, he empties his barrel and says, "I would if I had bullets." and starts walking towards Swann. He chooses "to stop." What a beautiful way to go! One of the most daring acts of Bond in the flick is when he rams and tries to scooch a plane amidst a narrow path surrounded by trees. He stops at nothing whilst chasing. So he has proved in the beginning scene of Casino Royale. Another one of course, walking into the lion's den eventually, which was both bold and stupid at the same time. But hey, we are talking Bond here! The beginning of the flick is outrageously rad too. The cameras that walk alongside Bond as he strolls through Mexican streets, to a hotel room, then scales alongside him till he reaches his target, every bit of it have been gorgeously captured. Action is top-notch as well. Watch out for the Batista train duel. Perfetto! Another thing that you would notice is its score. So bloody brilliant! Thomas Newman makes the music so beautiful and bad-ass that it's hard not to notice it. Before deciding to watch Spectre, mark this on your checklist: Choose a theater you love for its sound. Right from the Mexican beats, to Sam Smith's marvelous song, to soothing violins, were downright impeccable.

Mendes frames exceptional sceneries as he ranges down beautiful landscapes all across the globe. The photography and the cinematography can't be overlooked here as well. Simply outstanding! This movie is a perfect Craig-Bond tribute. Go bid your adieus!

Don't get me wrong! This was a lot better than "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace." But, it wasn't nearly as riveting as "Skyfall."

Perhaps, because Judi Dench only had an uncredited cameo via DVD (and, even then, only for about ten seconds). Or, maybe because it was even grimmer than "Skyfall," what with myself, and a very small handful of other audience members, being the only ones to laugh at most of the equally small number of intended jokes. It could also be that most of the (otherwise exciting) action scenes and stunts have been recycled from other 007 movies. Or even that--with the exception of Daniel Craig, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, and Monica Belluci--most of the international cast might be totally unfamiliar to American audiences!

In any case: while the tail end of the ending credits reassured everyone else that "James Bond will return," I'm not so sure. Given the full circle/emotional closure-type of happy ending they appeared to give this version of 007.

After all the complaints about this movie being a "mess", I really don't see what's so hard to follow. I'm in the minority, surely, having found Skyfall astonishingly overrated and never wanting to re-watch it, as it remains my least favourite of the Craig era Bond films. So much so I didn't deem it worth reviewing (if I had, it'd just be a list of all the things I hated about it). So when it was announced Sam Mendes would be directing Spectre, suffice to say I was not enthused. Martin Campbell remains my favourite Bond film director (he not only gave us two of the best introduction films to new Bonds, Brosnan and Craig, in Goldeneye and Casino Royale, but two of the best Bond films, period) and I maintain that he should be brought back, as he's able to direct action in both thrilling and coherent ways.

Casino Royale did a beyond excellent job of rebooting the franchise and introducing Daniel Craig as a much 'grittier' Bond, but not without a sense of humour. This was lost somewhat in the follow-up, Quantum of Solace (though, given what he was going through at the time, it was understandable). With Skyfall, I found Bond turned into a nasty piece of work when he callously quipped about the "waste of good scotch" after Severine's death (when he was supposed to *help* her). Thankfully, there's none of that nastiness here, I'm able to LIKE Bond again as a character, and more surprisingly, it's the first instance of both Bond girls *living* in a Craig film - maybe because he puts some actual effort into saving them. It's been said Craig looks "tired/bored" of the role in this film, but I imagine if we hadn't known beforehand that he wanted out, there'd be no such thoughts. I found he showed more humanity here than in Skyfall, but his first film is still him at his most likable.

Léa Seydoux's Dr. Madeleine Swann, meanwhile, might not be quite up to the same high standard for Bond girls set by Eva Green's Vesper Lynd (but then, who could be? I appreciated her getting a mention, appearing in the opening credits sequence and seeing her photo. She may be gone, but never forgotten), but she has attitude, is respectable, stands up to James and shows him she's not clueless when it comes to fighting/firing a gun. Nothing will ever surpass the chemistry Green had with Craig, but Seydoux gives it an admirable effort. They share some good scenes together and I was happy with where she and Bond wound up in the film's closing moments (even if it ended with a sense of foreboding). The only real misstep was her walking away from him, what felt like out of nowhere, simply so she could be captured towards the end.

Speaking of, while people have been badmouthing the 'pointlessly elaborate sadistic death trap' she was placed in by the film's villain, I'm willing to bet some are the same people who'd found the first Craig films "too serious" and not feeling like "old school Bond". Well, this film works to rectify that for better or worse, with the introduction of Christoph Waltz's Blofeld. Try as the movie might to have kept this a secret, there really was no need. There's more than enough hints early on, before we even get to the more obvious ones (like the fluffy white cat). Unfortunately, what should be the most memorable villain yet has a rather sub-par introduction. The first scene with him should've been tension-filled, but instead fell flat and needlessly drawn-out (which is a large part of the film's problem, but I felt the same way with Skyfall, which needed a good editor). The reveal of his connection to James also feels rather pointless, though it's obviously intended to give him some deep emotional connection/motivation. He only really feels close to the Blofeld we used to know by the end, with the torture of Bond, aforementioned extravagant trap set for him and the climax. Sadly, his fate doesn't play out as it should (what was Bond thinking?!) simply so he can come back to haunt James later on. Hopefully Madeleine doesn't get Tracy'd.

For all the fuss made about Monica Bellucci playing the "oldest" Bond girl, she's not in the film for very long...which is a shame. Unlike most, I can't say I'm loving this new younger Q. He's alright, but I'd have preferred his expanded role be reduced in favour of devoting more time towards Bond and Swann's developing relationship. Those complaining about Moneypenny being "wasted"...what do you expect? She's Moneypenny - who usually just sits behind a desk, acting flirty with Bond, but has gotten to do way more already than the character ever did previously. Our new M is sufficient, though can't hold a candle to Judi Dench's M. I've noticed Dave Bautista described as "great", but saw no evidence of such here. He stands around being big/brawny, poking people's eyes out and uttering one single curse word, that's it. A forgettable henchman like so many are.

This second outing for Mendes at least looked nice. The Day of the Dead opening gave us something different visually, though the seemingly never-ending "one-shot" take/"oner" seemed more showing off than anything. The movie has two close-quarters fight scenes, one at the start with Bond in a helicopter and later on a train. They're both quite well done, giving us something different than we're used to. The car chase in between might not be the most thrilling one ever, but the music elevates it, as does an injection of humour. The tone/quality of Casino Royale has yet to be beaten, as does its opening montage/theme song (writhing inky octopus ladies? Not gonna cut it). Unlike most, I came to appreciate Quantum of Solace after getting some distance from it/upon re-watch. As for Spectre...at least I liked it WAY more than Skyfall.

This is a true vintage bond film that will be applauded by not just bond fans but all movie fans, the action is not as much as it was in skyfall but thats because this bond film focuses more on the story. You get the custom epic opening scene which in some way pays homage to the bond film "live and let die" True bond fans will understand, daniel craig shows a more vulnerable bond in this outing by doing something bond rarely does and thats trust people. thrown in some clever one liners this is by far craigs best bond film and with the 007 franchise finally got the rights back to use spectre and its interested party's there is never a better time for a new bond to take the reigns if daniel craig is leaving.the only complaint i have is there is too many light hearted comedy moments but overall its a must see. The past will always catch up with you and in spectre it catches up with bond

This is a sequel to SKYFALL. Bond battles "the author of all his pain" as his secret past is revealed. An international organization plans on uniting all the top intelligence agencies in order to combat terrorism. However their goals are not benign nor are their methods honorable. Bond has his hands tied by his own agency as he operates in a semi-rogue fashion.

The film gives us plenty of over the top action, Bond girls, Bond lines, Bond car and the Bond drink. I don't recall the casino. It shows the evolution of a man. It also shows us why men like Bond are obsolete in the modern world of intelligence gathering and drones....or does it?

Perhaps it is me, but the film seems to changed to have more action than drama.

I'm not much of a Bond fan but the great thing about Craig era Bond is that they're Bond films for people who don't like Bond films . None of this killing a bad guy then turning to camera making a wisecrack . None of this climatic fight sequence on a mode of transport with laughable back projection . With Craig's Bond if he says he's in Mexico the production team make sure the audience know he's in Mexico and not in a Shepperton film studio . If Bond gets hit in the genitals he'd feel it the same as 3.5 billion men . If a woman who he cares about gets killed he gets angst ridden about it . In other words we - the audience - can relate to this . It'd be a step too far to say Craig's Bond is now part of realist cinema but I for one feel this direction has saved a tired and dying franchise . With SPECTRE the series has taken a rather clumsy step backward

!!!! SPOILERS !!!!

It's not all bad . Sam Mendes keeps up the riveting work seen with the brilliant SKYFALL . The film opens with a continues shot where the camera gives the impression it's all done in one take . A female character leaves her house to stand beside a pool where two assassins follow her and again it's a great example of a tracking shot and you do get the impression the technical staff are after those Oscars next year . The film also contains gritty violence such as a Spectre agent being executed in a graphic manner . If you loved the art-house and deadpan tone of the previous three films then it's still sustained . Such a pity it's never sustained enough and we have to endure a few bits of nonsense we'd thought we'd never see again By this I mean we're back to the gadgets era of Connery , Moore and Brosnan . A car with an ejector seat and flame throwers ! Oh dear . Didn't like this much back in the day and don't like it now . In many ways it's even worse now because it jars with the serious tone of much of the film . Another annoying aspect is that Bond is able to endure much physical violence such as a fight on a train and brain drilling and yet seems to physically recover instantly . A million miles away from the Bond seen in CASINO ROYALE

This film's major failing is however contained in the title -SPECTRE . You've seen the trailers with Christoph Waltz telling Bond that he's been the cause of his pain etc but none of the motivation or continuity is ever satisfactorily explained . Spectre ties in with Quantum but why ? and how ? It does give a hint as to its philosophy when a character mentions "weakness" and decries "Democracy" which might indicate the organisation is a literally fascist cult but again this goes totally unexplored There's no reason for this organisation to be called Spectre except to reference earlier Bond films and use nostalgia as a marketing tool . It also has a plot twist of sorts where Waltz character reveals his true identity but again this seems like cynical fan servicing . He never seems like the character he is supposed to and is more in line with Elliot Carver from TNL

I found myself slightly disappointed by this film .SKY FALL had a lot to live up to and had been looking forward to this ever since the trailers came out . To be fair I didn't find myself pining for the Moore and Brosnan movies but SPECTRE feels like a retrograde step where gadgets and set pieces take precedence over plotting and character motivation . If SPECTRE breaks box office records it will be because of the previous Craig films and not because of its own merits

Spectre continues the James Bond mythology and Daniel Craig's run as the globe-trotting, martini swilling, womanizing, super agent based on the character created by Ian Fleming. This film ties together threads from the previous three and this continuity was one of the major selling points to me but did not follow through as I hoped. The new 007 has always been treated as a bit of a reboot, back to the beginning, starting out earning his stripes, series so this takes it to the next level back adding the iconic villain from the past series.

This twist should come as no surprise and the big reveal feels a little dead in this internet spoiler day and age. This is one of Christoph Waltz's most unimpressive performances but it would be interesting to see the potential. The continuity also felt like it had to be in there because other stories have done it.

There was potential in this installment but several of the action sequences fell flat. Every time the chases came about it didn't really seem to matter and the bad guy lair escape scene was just dull. It felt like an easy mode escape on a video game and ended way too quickly for the potential it could've had. No tension, no stakes, no caring for the characters.

It hit all the points so if you had a checklist, fast cars, bond girls, exotic places, evil villain, small pistol, explosions, tough guy henchman, but all of this felt so forced and like no one really wanted to do this but they had all this money so oh well.

The chemistry between Craig and Lea Seydoux was nonexistent and Monica Bellucci was barely in the film at all, and seemed sadly unimportant to the overall plot.

I hope this isn't the last for Daniel Craig, it would be a bad way to go out. If you're an avid fan, there are some forgivable moments and the nostalgia factor pushes it over the edge. That Sam Mendes directed it shows through in a very cool opening sequence but I doubt he'll continue with the series. I give a 7 out of 10 and it may grow on me when I get to rewatch it.

Things start out quite exciting with a spectacular helicopter sequence in Mexico City. But things fizzle out quickly and there are too many yawn inducing moments leading to a clichéd anti-climax of an ending. In between, it feels interminable.

The actors: When the villain and the hero kind of look alike you know the Daniel Craig has to be replaced - even he himself doesn't want to do another Bond movie. Let a younger, less haggard, more suave actor take his place. Christoph Waltz as one of the more insipid Bond villains wasn't given the opportunity to shine. It seemed like a caricature of his other villain roles. That C guy was forgettable. Ralph Fiennes looked pretty dour throughout. As the main female lead Lea Seydoux was a bit of a plain Jane for the role. At least her diction is understandable. It was fun to see her quite proactive in the train fight but she lacks the special quality and unique beauty required in a Bond girl.

Locations: At least there were some exotic places but Tangier could have been portrayed a bit nicer instead of that dirty looking hotel and street. Every time the location changed to London it got boring and drab. Wonder why they had to film in such wintry looking conditions in London. A few glamorous scenes would have helped balance things. The train was hardly a romantic place for the hook up.

Gadgets and cars: The car chase in Rome seemed fake - not enough traffic on the road. The car didn't look very special - a bit last decade and common looking. Nothing unique happened with the gadgets or technology. The bomb watch was too simplistic.

Directing and story: Sam Mendes isn't good for action. He let the pace slacken too much throughout. He needs to look at the recent 'Mission Impossible' or any Luc Besson movie to see how to keep up momentum. The plot was uninvolving - don't really get Lea Seydoux's role. The ending was so deja vu and predictable - giving him enough time to escape and tying her up. The falsetto Sam Smith song is out of place.

Most fans will probably see this movie. Too bad it's hardly better than the dismal 'Skyfall'.

So Spectre has landed. Another step in the incremental return to the Connery Bonds: M is male again, Spectre is back and Christopher Walz ends up as close to Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice as possible. In fact, the entire film is a giant love letter to the entire series. Hardly a single sequence is truly original: they are all variations (usually bigger and flashier, though not always) on old material.

So is the movie a rousing success? No. It's something of a disaster, really.

First and foremost: Daniel Craig is a terrible Bond. A great actor, but a terrible Bond. Boring, unsexy, self-satisfied, empty, thuggish - and worst of all, he doesn't even seem to be having any fun. Neither as actor or as the character. In the olden days, Bond was the ultimate male wish fulfillment figure. Nowadays, Bond is a tortured, boring individual with a dreary love life and lots of unresolved emotional issues. There are a few quips, but they aren't funny in the first place and Craig's low key delivery robs them of whatever life they might have possessed in the first place.

Secondly, the fanatical determination to make all these new Bond adventures 'personal' is detrimental to the plotting. In CR, Bond had to get his hands on a bad guy's money in order to get him into trouble with his bosses. In QoS, Bond has to prevent Bolivian water resources from being privatized. In SF, Bond has to get a list of agents back - a list which is promptly forgotten about after an hour (barely). And here, Bond has to go looking for... well, basically not very much. There's a nefarious plot about surveillance, but that's M's problem, really. But it all doesn't really matter anyway, because we discover that Blofeld has started Spectre just to ruin James Bond's life (some goal), all because Bond was his foster brother and 'stole' the love of his dad away from him. Not only is this the most ridiculous motivation in the history of the movies, but Bond doesn't even share one personal memory of Oberhausen/Blofeld, making this entire plot twist moot.

Thirdly, the pacing is off. There are a number of action scenes, but there is far too much padding between them. The love affairs (with a far from glamorous Monica Bellucci in one of the dumbest seduction/exposition scenes ever) and with waif-like and dull Lea Seydoux are totally unconvincing. Chemistry between Craig and his female co-stars is non-existent. The lack of a tangible threat means that there is almost no forward impetus to the narrative. Sure, Bond is busy all the time, but the viewer, especially one not versed in Craig canon, often doesn't know why the events on screen are supposed to be important.

Fourth, the movie resembles MI5:Rogue Nation to an incredible degree. Even down to having the penultimate chapter of the adventure take place in Morocco, and the finale in London! And just like in MI:5, the entire final act is a gigantic anti-climax. Possibly the least exciting Bond finale ever. Where Bond isn't even necessary to solve the plot...

We can only hope that this is truly the end of the Craig era, and that the Broccoli/Wilson clan will soon lose control over this property. High time that the 007-niverse was handled by a new creative team.

To be honest, this is my first time watching a James Bond movie. It it didn't disappoint

For over 2 hours, the movie gives a blend of every kind of a movie. From the jaw breaking helicopter scene, the freaking cool Aston Martin DB10, the really spine chilling organization, fight scene, intense torture scene, to plot twists, this movie has EVERYTHING. Daniel Craig's performance was amazing and he truly deserves the title as THE James Bond. The main villain is truly evil, and the main actress is truly someone who steals the show

Although with awesome acting, fight scene and awesome gadgets (that watch is....), there's something I would like to heavily criticized, and that is the sexual references. Honestly, I don't really liked the sex scenes or the opening visuals (Even great music can't help). It's truly disturbing to me.

Although with several minor disadvantages, Spectre still stands out as both a spy and a 007 movie.

FINAL SCORE: 9/10

This movie is totally amazing and nice movie i love james bond movie . But this part is ok for others part of James bond movie . I have watched second times give six star ✨🌟 .

Having watched SPECTRE twice now, I believe I can write about it more objectively, given that I'm a fan of the franchise and of Daniel Craig's, so the text may be a little biased.

Following the massive success of Skyfall, it is natural that SPECTRE would suffer with the comparison to its predecessor. The fact that Sam Mendes is back to direct it also adds a factor to the comparison. I'm not ready to say if it's better or worse. It's just different, but I enjoyed it quite a lot.

The epigraph "The Dead are Alive" already hints that this movie is going to talk about deceased people who might still influence those who remained (Bond, in this case). Cut to the opening sequence in Mexico City, precisely on the Day of the Dead, with the country's traditional celebration in costumes. That sequence is breathtaking not only because of the amount of extras and the gorgeous costumes involved, but also because of the way it was shot. It seems to be a long take with no edits, something like Birdman.

The opening credits are always entertaining, and it also let us know that we will hear about characters from Bond's past, as their faces appear while Sam Smith's "Writing's on the Wall" is playing precisely during the verses "A million shards of glass/ That haunt me from my past". A side note about the song: is it better than Adele's "Skyfall"? No, but it's much better than previous Bond themes... besides, the way the credits roll are so entertaining that it's worth it.

The movie itself is filled with references to other films from the franchise, some more subtle, others more evident. He does ask for his Martini shaken, not stirred, he says "Bond, James Bond", he has gadgets from Q (Ben Whishaw), he drives an Aston Martin and he flirts with Moneypenny (Naomi Harris).

What I liked about this film is that M, Q and Moneypenny have more involvement with the plot, putting their jobs on the line to help Bond. The scenes between Bond and Q are priceless and I laughed in almost every interaction they had.

Sam Mendes did a wonderful job again, in my opinion. The film is long, but the pacing was good. It's always changing places, from one stunning location to another. Thomas Newman's score bothered me a little bit, because it sounded much alike Skyfall's at times and I was expecting something more different.

I didn't like the ending the first time I saw it. However, after the second time it grew on me a little bit. What bothered me was that there was no explanation for the word SPECTRE. So, those who don't know that it means Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion will not learn that while watching this movie. It's also good to know that this organization, recurring in older films, was led by Ernst Blofeld, who always had a white cat (and satirized by Mike Myers in Austin Powers).

No one knows if Daniel Craig will be back for a 5th film (and I hope he does!) but, in case he doesn't, SPECTRE is a nice ending to his 10-year run as 007. It solves the mysteries of his previous movies in a good way and it establishes him forever as a completely different Bond: more physical, darker, less silly and more realistic (I'll never forget the crazy plot of Die Another Day…).

Full review: http://wp.me/p5Rk4c-g0

Let me say it. I want Daniel Craig to stay in this age and forever only play Jamed Bond every couple of years. I want that, please, give me that.

For starters, I loved this movie. Spectre is intense, it has an awesome score, it is definitely one of the best looking movies of all time, all the set-pieces, oceans, places, all great. The cinematography is absolutely Oscar-worthy. Daniel Craig is once again so great as James Bond, so is everyone else in the movie... all-in-all, I'm pretty sure I'll be watching this another 20 times very very soon. (Though probably skipping the intro song... Bored out my mind throughout that one, bring back Adele!)

Having said all that... if you are a fan of James Bond and you want to be simply entertained when one of his films comes around, I don't want to say anything that could possibly make you upset or worried about Spectre. Seriously, the film is great. The opening scene alone is one of the best intro's in a James Bond film ever.

I just had a couple of thoughts and 2 days after watching the film I want to share things that cross my mind.

See, the thing is that the previous movie was Skyfall. And Skyfall was for the most people the best James Bond film ever. So how do you try to top that? You don't. You go to a different direction. Spectre tried to do that, it actually worked for the most part, but unfortunately a lot of moments felt abrupt.

Daniel Craig proved in all his previous movies (even in Quantum) he deserves the name of "James Bond". The new way he and Martin Campbell handled the journey of him becoming James Bond in Casino Royale was done extremely well. Then you walked into Skyfall, a much more personal movie, dealing with the past and serving a lot of nostalgic moments, both indoors and outdoors of the Bond franchise.

And then enter Spectre. It does try to change a couple of things (particularly bringing back some of the silliness and funny moments of previous Bonds), allowing Craig to have a bit more fun and less stress throughout a mission (also enter Mrs. Monica Belluchi at this point). But what is the problem? Well, it's not one, so to sum it up, while hoping not to spoil anything, I'll list them.

1) The villain. Spectre tries to deliver this unbelievably greatest villain of all time with this guy named Blofeld (played by the underused I felt Cristoph Waltz)... well, in the end it just felt like trying to top other villains.

2) The running time. Man, I just feel like it could have been so much better if it was like 20 minutes shorter. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind watching Daniel Craig wearing suits and jackets even for 20 hours, but the story didn't need it. Which brings me to my final point...

3) The Story. Spectre unfolds like the last page of a very good book that was completely rushed when it had to be finished. While it doesn't have to, it tries to piece together everything in this weird, supposedly smart and complicated way... I didn't get it. At least, not all of it.

Perhaps it's just nitpicking. The sure thing is that I'm proud of Spectre. It comes at a time where most blockbusters try to blow everything up and only use superheroes and superpowers to bring excitement. Spectre is proof that you can still have all that fun and seriousness without anything being "super". Sam Mendes is a director definitely worth remaining in the action genre.

I don't know if Daniel Craig makes another movie or not (I think one more is in his contract), I want as much as I can get. He knows the character, he has studied the character, he wears those suits so fine, he IS James Bond. I feel like whoever they choose to fill his shoes, will be a disappointment. Spectre is one more excellent movie in his Bond agenda and I'm sure I'll be forgetting most of its flaws pretty soon.

That's why it deserves a 9/10. Love you, Danny!

Spectre. Great name, great opening sequence (the moment they start speaking is when the film turns downhill) and great to see Monica Bellucci, beauty she is, still charming the audience.

...But what a bad movie. All of that million dollar budget, hundreds of hours spent in production, the rich character history to draw on...

Well. Actually. Maybe the Bond history is part of what's tripping this movie up.

Blofeld makes his return to this rebooted series of Bond films, and props for giving him his classic cat and scar. The cat only gets about five seconds of screen time, blink and you miss it/him. And they went out of their way to find the absolute ugliest cat they could find, but I digress. Blofeld's motivations are completely misplaced.

As it so happens, he and Bond are half brothers or step brothers (or something.) So Blofeld's evil machinations are spurned by fraternal jealousy, sibling rivalry, or something *utterly* contrived like that. In trying to tie the film together with the rest of the Bond mythos, the filmmakers trip themselves up.

Plus, Daniel Craig's Bond is meant to be an icy-eyed assassin. A killer. But, in a maddening, audience-infuriating moment towards the end of the film, Bond spares the life of Blofeld. In the Daniel Craig Bond films, he's killed dozens of people in cold blood. Why on Earth would he spare the life of an evil mastermind responsible for all of the carnage and death Bond has faced thus far? Why?

...Oh, yes. Sequels. Nothing more complex than that. Come on, guys. The good guy letting the bad guy get away was old hat even back in the 60's. Seeing it on screen these days is just insulting.

Maybe we should take a rest from Bond for a while. Daniel Craig certainly is, given his announcement that he's retiring the role. Craig's a good actor, but I never bought him as Bond, and none of them have ever replaced Sean Connery. Plus, Bond was born out of the Cold War. That's been over for awhile now.

The problem with Bond today is lack of relevance. Bond should be targeting terrorist groups like ISIS, not killing time in mountain resorts in Switzerland (or whatever ritzy white ski hill he spends a third of the movie in.) If Captain America "socked Adolf Hitler in the jaw," Bond today should be stopping terrorist bombing plots, or at the very least dealing with something topical.

i love james bond,I've seen all the films, and i can say this is the worst one, dull , meandering script, at times i had no idea what the plot was. lots of confusiion ,SPOILER ALERT: like aeroplanes appearing from no where,daniel craig didn't appear to act at all, just the same bemused face all the way through, im surprised he doesn't want to do any more.there are good stunts, car chases, fights, but lots of boredem, and often i was lost, the side story of oo dept being scrapped was just annoying, often extra would disappear completely, i wouldn't recommend this film to anybody. if james bond ahdnt been in it, id thinkit was a b movie made for TV

This movie opens with Bond's solo mission hunting down Siaccra (the we found out that Siaccra is the last message of previous M) in the middle of "The Day of the Dead" parade of Mexico City. Bond's successfully fulfilled this unofficial mission after a breathtaking chase and fight inside helicopter in the air killed all his enemies.Bond also manage to steal Sciarra ring with an octopus logo.Bond got suspended for his action even though M realize that this unofficial mission prevent the mass bombing scenario.But,he is not stopping at all, this is only the beginning of his personal mission. Siaccra's death leads Bond to a gorgeous Italian widow Lucia Siaccra (Monica Belluci),and this gorgeous lonely that need a protector tips Bond about her late husband meeting point. And Bond didn't need waste time and directly entered the meeting point easily and finally not just see the face of Spectre's leader but surprisingly this person has connection with Bond's childhood. Frankly i hope Spectre is going to be the greatest Bond ever made - better than Skyfall.But i must admit there are few things that i felt that should be explore. When the leader of Spectre revealed himself to Bond, that really shocked and i think scared the hell out Bond, is one of the best momentum.When this Spectre mysterious leader Ernst Stavro Bloveld enter the room, sudden this large meeting hall become so chill, filled with fear, we only hear his voice that gives the feel of terror.But this momentum didn't maintained well. I think the story should explore more "space" for psychological battle between Bond and Ernst (a.k.a Franz Oberhauser that believed is dead decades ago in an accident that also killed Franz father). In Skyfall audiences were shown the psychological condition between love and hatred of Raoul Silva (ex 00 agent went rough who seek revenge for being abandoned and left for dead after Raoul's personal mission almost jeopardize the handover Hongkong from England back to China back in 1997). Maybe that Sam Mendez already to tired to explore this psychological things.Or just wanna focus on Bond's mission that really wanna put his misery to an end,cause Ernst recognition that for this past few years Bond's misery for the lost all that he love so much and devoted to is taken away by Ernst all along behind his collaborator in crime. This is the most apparent weakness of this Spectre. Craig performance is great, he can easily combined the drama side of this Bond character. Monica Belluci short performance but still can steal a few moments. I also give credit to Ben Whisaw as Q. and off course Waltz performance is good but not as strong as Javier's performance as villain in Skyfall. But however the early of Waltz's character appear is the best highlight in Spectre.

Remember Quantum of Solace? I don't. I saw it, but I don't remember what the movie was about. That's how I feel having just watched Spectre.

Casino Royale was great, until the very end. How many main villains were there, 3? Then comes Quantum of Solace. Skyfall was fantastic--a big but tight and focused story with a great villain. Now comes Spectre. It seems the Bond screenwriters bat .500.

From the very beginning, when there is a black screen saying "Day of the Dead", I thought something was wrong. Wasn't there a better way for the writers to show that it was Mexico during the Day of the Dead festival?

The film meanders from action sequence to action sequence without a clear purpose. Stuff happens, and Bond goes places, but I wasn't entirely sure why. In all, the film felt as rushed to me as some of the latest Marvel entries, like the date for the movie was put up without there first being a coherent script written. Get the story down, then put up the date for the sequel.

Because of that, some things just don't make sense:

Bond has a chance to finish off the tough bad guy played by Batista, after the plane versus Range Rover chase sequence, but he doesn't. He shoots the driver, but he doesn't pop a cap in Batista who is in the passenger seat.

Right after the fight on the train with Batista, Bond and the Bond girl have sex? Why? Personally, I would wonder how the bad guy tracked me down, but that's just me.

Why does Bond have to have a childhood relationship with Blofeld? That's so forced, so cheap.

You can't just say that all the bad guys the Daniel Craig Bond has faced were puppets of Blofeld and Spectre. You have to show it--show the connections. I didn't see Spectre rings on their fingers. You have to explain how Silva and the others became members.

The Austin Powers question pops up several times . You have Bond, captured, contained, and helpless. Why not just kill him, instead of playing games. Bond escapes again and again.

One thing this movie does well is usher in the transition to the new James Bond. In the end, we get basically a Daniel Craig riding off into the sunset scene, with the Bond Girl beside him. He made a choice not to kill, and the girl survived. They are together happily ever after. That's the feel of the scene. That's a perfect end for the Daniel Craig era of Bond.

This review will be mostly spoiler free because despite all the problems that the production and the writing suffered this movie is a self conscious sleight of hands between all the things you think you know about the plot mixed with dark and funny surprises that pave their way through around the final half. And that's an incredible triumph over all the odds that must be experienced in bare bones. It's a terrific Bond film (more Bondish than Skyfall in a gloriously preposterous way)that has the equals in production values, score (Thomas Newman mixing Skyfall cues with new ones fits well), direction, performances and the brave narrative decisions taken in its script. But let me say this in advice: it may not exactly reach the same smart and complex, deeper and meaningful way achieved in the very personal Skyfall.

The priceless opening sequence: Masterful. Eye popping. Five minutes (or so) in one tracking shot. Never seen before in the franchise. Maybe the best prologue EVER. This is how you start a movie in a truly rip- roaring fashion.

Opening credits: It's a special affair to take part. Sam Smith tune has a little to compare with the epic scoop from Adele, but as a slow burning ballad is terrific for the movie (and very gorgeously designed for it, culminating in a very special opening titles). Is about a man who is an assassin but at the same a time a human being with his flaws (more or less in a way like Dench's M wants for Bond at their first face to face in Casino Royale) and his uncertain demise to find someone pure and up to him…

The rest of the movie (If I'd reveal anything, I would deserve a ban from all the users of this site): it takes a little of time at some parts and it probably would affect in direct comparison to its predecessor. But this movie is able to live up the plot of Skyfall by deeper extravaganza and funnier build up even if it tries to rehash elements rather than add other news (wait a while in order really meet the villain, spy games in MI6 office, Bond has to operate in the shadows again…). Taking its basis as a somewhat follow up (it starts as an extended epilogue indeed with a special message from someone of the past brought back from dead "for a few moments") it develops its own big story with style, patching the whole Craig's era so far and even paying homage to certain iconic moments of his run (there's a cracking torture scene this time too that may push the rating a bit too far) and the franchise overall (the fight in the train, a cat, iconic action sequence in the snow). Just when you think that the script is falling in a familiar territory, the film suddenly subverts your expectations using human drama (very effective for Bond and Oberhauser) instead the action or the fatigue. And the reveals make these characters even more likable and interesting. This smells like the truly 50th anniversary but 3 years later due to finding itself very encouraged to include references of the whole 007 story than the personal previous outing: It 's a thrilling and tragic Bond film, with best of Connery/Moore (and Lazenby) roots (gadgets included) but without becoming too campy or an absurd parody of itself. The performances (Fiennes, Whishaw, Harris, the twisted Andrew Scott, Monica Bellucci in her little amount of screen time "without mercy" and obviously the Bond "new" main interest: Léa Seydoux) are top notch as we could expect from Sam Mendes (even better in the direction). But Christoph Waltz (as insanely brilliant as we were looking for even if falls short to be as resonant as Silva and being closer to a more billed Le Chiffre), Dave Bautista (perfect, brutal, ruthless and iconic) and Daniel Craig (he nails it: operatic complex, dark, emotional and riveting-best Bond EVER) are the three best things that could ever happen to the movie in performances terms.

From its orgasmic start in Mexico City to his hard hitting conclusion in London, Spectre is a gift for newcomers and classics Bond fans and a great action thriller with a heart. I don't know if it's the best Craig's Bond movie (Casino Royale is still a modern classic and Skyfall maybe fell in a better context and expectations in comparison with this one), but is a perfect entertaining and that was the same exciting affair happened to the two ones mentioned. While its deep psychological punch may not being so surprising nor original this time and the effectively reliable political urgency that made Skyfall so unique is left a little underweight with the M vs. C plot, Sam Mendes and the whole team can breathe relaxed. They have wrapped up their story in a new whole level and in a spectacular victory fashion by succeeding presenting a riveting story in terms of pure emotion and action. And if this is the real farewell to Daniel Craig's run he couldn't really ask for any better final outing, as well to thank to the producers and writers to have gifted him the greatest Bond era of all. He really leaves the tux (and the broken soul inside it) on a beautiful high. I'm even afraid if he agrees to come back (with almost the same team or another) even being my favorite Bond… Because to surpass this is going to be a hell of a difficulty.

Do you want to direct the next James Bond movie? Here are 10 simple tips.

1. Over-inflate the conspiracy theory. Here the head of British Intelligence is part of Spectre (the organisation). Utterly incredible whichever angle you look from. For the next movie, think about the Queen of England or the Pope as Spectre #2 (since conveniently for a sequel #1 is still alive).

2. Add family bonds. Here Spectre #1 is James' adoptive brother. Totally useless but fun. Next movie: cast Darth Vader saying "James, I am your father".

3. Plan a few incredible escapes. Here Blofeld tortures Bond without removing his bomb-watch (everybody knows Bond's watch is just to give the time, right?) and leaves his accomplice free so she can recuperate the device. Next movie: Blofeld should tickle Bond unattached leaving him a gun in one hand and a grenade in another.

4. Teach all these villains how to shoot and give them real ammunition. Here they seem to shoot randomly with blank bullets, missing Bond and/or Swann on various occasions notably outside their own premises.

5. Transplant a brain to the same villains. Here they are expecting Bond at the Spectre meeting and try to capture him... but they don't immobilise his car, do not close the gates and don't have 10 killers surrounding him at once, just one Mickey Mouse. Also they have rings containing all the data from the whole Spectre organisation. It's very fair of villains to give out as much information as they are hacking.

6. Actually transplant a brain to Bond himself since he prefers to have a dangerous car chase in a city and crash a useful car instead of just stopping and shooting the single villain behind him. That's what he's paid for, isn't he?

7. Plan a few spectacular explosions, as in the movie when Bond takes ONE shot at ONE gas pipe... and all of the gigantic Spectre complex vanishes into thin air.

8. Recycle good old Bond stuff: parade (Thunderball), death masks (Live And Let Die), helicopter in the opening sequence (For Your Eyes Only), tracker in Bond's arm (Casino Royale), building on top of a mountain (On Her Majesty's Secret Service), fight in a train (From Russia with Love), boat chase on Thames (The World Is Not Enough), car chase (various), snow chase (various), etc. etc.

9. Throw in as much money as you want, payback will be enormous even in 2D. Crash a lot of cars, get some stolen in a parking lot, plan many shooting locations, have action, explosions, action and more action. Forget about cheap ideas like a solid plot and character depth as there were for instance in "Casino Royale".

10. To be fair to the movie: as in "Spectre", have good actors, some funny dialogue, thrilling scenes (Mexico), superb settings (Rome), slow scenes to enhance rhythm (Spectre meeting, hotel l'Americain, train station in the desert), criticism of the dangers of total surveillance. Unfortunately most of these good elements happen in the first part of the movie only (roughly up to the Spectre complex in the desert).

James Bond is involved in a mission which M knows nothing about. Given that the department is under threat from a new broom in Whitehall who is looking to merge the UK's information-gathering machinery with that of other countries, M suspends Bond. As if that would stop him! What follows is a dizzy mix of opposing factions, with unexpected support and treachery.

When writing a review for a film which is barely out of the starting gate, but which is sure to have a massive audience, one has to take care to avoid spoilers. Well, everyone managed it for the big one in Skyfall, so I'm certainly not minded to blow any surprises here. And there are some, including faces we didn't expect to see, nods to the past, and even nods to Fleming's books.

But this isn't really a film for big surprises. It's a film which has a strong story, and some terrific action – just watch the opening set piece, and realise how long the first shot takes and the amount and nature of the camera movement involved in it – stunning! The cast are all excellent. Craig has now officially overtaken Connery as the best Bond in my book, Ralph Fiennes sits comfortably in M's chair, and the support team are better used by far than they were in the days when Lee, Maxwell and Llewellyn turned up for a day's work each. Christoph Waltz is an entertaining baddie, Lea Seydoux has an air about her which means that you're never quite sure which side she's batting for, and only poor old Monica Bellucci gets the short end of the stick in a part which is somewhat underwritten, and definitely underused. And while the music features all the usual Bond cues, there are several places where it is wonderfully original for a Bond film.

But, for me, there are two things which stand out. The first is that I really like the way the Craig Bond films have developed, and held to, an internal continuity – this film ties in with the previous three – as well as acknowledging a (necessarily fluid) continuity with earlier films. And the second is that, again, Sam Mendes has given us a Bond film which is not simply an action/adventure travelogue, he has given us a work of art, where every scene contains images which could be presented on the walls of an art gallery. Light, shade, colour, composition, all are used to fill the screen with a film which is a great pleasure to just look at.

The title song, the arrangement of which uses all the clichés we have come to know and love is, in my view, hideous. I may be out of step here, but I think it is a strangulated mess.

so we start with the new James bond i decide i didn't want to see trailers of this film as most films give away the plot from trailers so i was happy i didn't so we start by saying all the other Daniel Craig bonds have there bad guys stories mixed into this film as way of connecting the dots as a deck of cards he slowly works up the the deck to find the head man in other for him to find the king of this secret organization he has to take unofficial leave going rogue is a option because mi5 are merging with mi6 after there building was destroyed so with bond getting a sniff of chance he is off the grid and when he turns up in Mexico at a festival of the day of the dead he finds questions because of a cryptic message from his past following leads he finds a clue and follows a man to a building were he listens the action starts right here from blown out building to collapsing gounds its worth every penny the start so here so we have jaw dropping fight in the helicopter all around upside down over the festival its amazing 15 Min's start nearly with out any words so with this incident on every paper gives his enemies every opportunity to close down to 00 role forever as he is out of date so says the new head of mi6.. Denbighwho is a pain in the backside Andrew Scott he doesn't thinks bond is relevant anymore so after killing .Lucia Sciarr husband played by Monica Bellucci he comes to here help or seduce her for info in Rome she doest get much time what a waist of talent but the bond so were in full flow with q gadgets with the new dvb 10 bond car so bond ... is on Rome on a hunch with only a symbol to go on he goes to see a board meeting of sorts because he believes he closer than ever to reveling his past when he comes to find out in the shadows what his past can reveal so when he see who his adversary is in the shadows so as he see the head of this organization he plays minds games with bond It is not until the release of Spectre (that the eponymous organization makes an appearance in the reboot series, reckoning Quantum as a subsection of the wider SPECTRE organization.i wont reveal who the mastermind behind previous films, including Raoul Silva's rampage of revenge in Skyfall (Mendes, 2012), taunting Bond with his previous failures i wont give away the plot as you know bond was an orphan and he was brought up by someone else but this mastermind goes all the way back to his childhood so this guy wants revenge over bond early life so as he meet see him bond gets away with a man mountain called Mr. Hinx played by Dave Bautista chasing him in the supped up cars what a car chase amazing nearly the highlight of this move but with so much a psychology going the James has finally got into his grove but does he have gadgets to match kind off so when he escape and q and money penny finding out clues he comes to Austria to find a certain villain from the previous 2 films to fill him on the deceit on the layer he finds out the villains he killed where working for this man who his daughter .., she understands Bond in a way most others cannot. As Bond ventures towards the heart of SPECTRE, he learns a chilling connection between himself and the enemy he seeks

knows the truth to In tangle the web of spectra so bond finds his new bond girl taken bond chases after in another stunning chase by air fantastic acting from everyone nods to old as we get closer to his answers we see bond want to ride of his unwanted tag get the hint but but on the way to the desert the villains daughter who is terrific she finds out her back story she great but on the train bond is bond and chatting up her but as you know the henchmen are never far away what a fight as we get closer to HQ and last but not least a race-against-time to evacuate from an abandoned building rigged with explosives. There is pure white- knuckle exhilaration to be had in each one of these sequences, are crisp cinematography captures every bit of the handsomely mounted action in full unblemished detail.

we find a clue a White animal hint hint but as bond finds out the all the clues lead him here as the man king of this organization knew bonds every move and his vulnerabilities and unwanted spy family tragedy he tangles bond life into his own but bond has other ideas but all ideas come back to London as he finds is his life written on the walls for retirement and could he be about to feel wanted that Daniel Craig bond has been about finding his targets out on his own or thinking about what his bond girl need can he find his level m and money penny have brilliant moments in this film but with all ties tied up from 1 to 4 is James bond ready to retire great connection from all four ten out of ten 2hrs 21mins all done and dusted with a new James we just have to well wait and see

The only person who falls in love faster than James Bond is that new Facebook friend who needs money to get to America.

It appears we need yet another Re-Bonding. First Brosnan drilled his four Bond films into the ground and now, in Spectre, Craig has overstayed his welcome as 007 in his fourth movie, as well.

What starts off very nicely as Craig's previous chapters did with an elaborate and exciting action scene, the movie has the distinction of being the only movie in Craig's films to completely fall apart after that thrilling opening and never recovers.

It's so hard to pinpoint all the things that irked me here, but I'll try to summarize without giving away too much. Here are a few:

> Craig looked worn out and disinterested. No wonder why he wants to quit the role.

> The score was literally a carbon copy of Quantum of Solace and the title song was probably the worst one in all 24 movies.

> The action was completely minimal, uninspiring and far from fresh (with the exception of the opening which eventually made me think it was a deleted scene from one of the other superior movies at the rate the movie progressed.)

> The nostalgia thrown at us like the movie was in 3D was just an excuse to pad the already too-long running time and though clever at times, it got old, fast.

> Already Craig's take was a Bourne copy, but one of the themes here was blatant theft.

> The plot, which was already pounded to death in the previous three movies wasn't just old here – it was 30 years "getting too old for this sh|t" old.

> 20% action, 8% villain. This is something we would except from the 1960-1970s Bond movies, but times have changed and it's not time to be in reverse.

> And speaking of the lack of villain, Waltz was wrongfully underused and sinfully misused when on screen. Where was the great character we loved him for in the Tarantino films?

> But, worst of all…it was boring.

Yes, admittedly, I am not a fan of a lot of the original 18 or so Bond films, specifically the Connery ones. Obviously a lot of people/fans are, so I do actually recommend this movie to those people. They will get the slow-paced, very little espionage (in a SPY MOVIE, huh,) the VERY EASY escapes from the villainous traps, the sexuality of Bond and the so-called comedic Q-moments galore. Personally, I've become accustomed to the action-packed, smart and modern Bond and was thoroughly disturbed with getting him back to doing practically nothing he hasn't done for 50 years. Hell, all the way to the third act, I was checking the time and when the lamest climax to any action movie in the past decade arrived, I actually started to doze off.

This all said, I didn't actually hate the movie. With the opening so strong and just a few of the jokes and throwbacks that worked, I don't put it on the bottom of all Bond movies. But, it certainly should put an end to both Craig's reign and to the one complete story separated into four movies.

Re-Bond again, please!

I had high expectations for this film after "Skyfall." However, they fell short after about halfway through the film, and the ending in itself isn't much better. Although there was some impressive action in this film, the story in itself is rather mediocre. Played by the underused Christoph Waltz, Franz Oberhauser, otherwise known as classic Bond villain Ernst Stavro Blofeld, basically "pursues" Bond throughout a majority of the film via "surveillance" all because he was having "Daddy issues." Not much of a story plot if you ask me. Moreover, with all of the "Nine Eyes" surveillance talk, NSA leaker Edward Snowden came to mind, but that's beside the point.

As previously mentioned, Christoph Waltz and Monica Bellucci were severely underused. Moreover, the campy style of some of the jokes were just a tad overdone, too. The DB10 is also hideous, but it was nice to see the classic DB5 at the end.

Now for some plot holes in the film:

1.) The "Spectre" ring - Made no sense and added nothing to the plot of the film. Are we led to believe that this ring was passed on from one Bond villain to another?

2.) The airplane scene - This was just one of the most unrealistic scenes in the film. Bond chases Mr. Hinx by plane after Dr. Madeleine Swann is kidnapped. As Bond continues to chase Hinx, he lands, clips some trees to where the wings shear off, and uses the plane as a battering ram against Hinx's vehicles. After he shoves the vehicles a few times, Bond takes the plane through a barn, where he nearly crash lands about a foot down. Ironically enough, he is still able to steer the plane perfectly and it never explodes, despite all of the abuse that it took. If this were a normal plane that took such abuse, it would've exploded a while ago.

3.) Dr. Madeleine Swann - I never understood why Dr. Swann and Bond felt any sort of attraction for one another, as Dr. Swann was nothing but rude to Bond throughout most of the film, by screaming and saying things like "get away from me" and "if you touch me, I'll kill you" while in bed. The fact that they even had a makeout scene actually had some people in my audience laughing (not a good thing). She also proclaims to "not like guns" but uses one anyway to help Bond defeat Mr. Hinx in the train car. Furthermore, to add insult to injury, however, she actually leaves him at one point in the film, after saying that Bond's lifestyle isn't for her, but somehow reunites with him at the end of the film anyway. For that reasoning, Seydoux's character seemed very complex to me.

4.) The "dentist chair" drill torture scene - This is another scene that I had a problem with. After Bond is pistol whipped and knocked unconscious, he wakes up to find himself tied down in a dentist style chair, with Dr. Swann and Blofeld sitting not far from him. Blofeld then tells Bond that he is going to use a drill on his head that will affect his vision, balance, and hearing. He proceeds to drill into Bond's head and penetrates his skull, making this scene almost hard to watch at times. After Bond cries out in pain (who wouldn't), Blofeld uses a second drill bit to penetrate one side of Bond's neck. This nearly seems to kill Bond, but despite what he just went through, he still manages to communicate with Dr. Swann. Not long after, Bond somehow manages to slip his watch out and hand it to Dr. Swann after they kiss each other. The watch is thrown in the middle of the room, an explosion occurs, and Blofeld is thrown out of his chair. A battle ensues, Bond breaks out of his chair, and he runs around with guns blazing as if he was never affected by the excruciating trauma that he just went through. A very unrealistic scene indeed.

5.) Toward the end of the film, how did Blofeld know that Bond escaped his guards? As Bond escapes from more of Blofeld's men, he heads toward the MI6 building, which is currently still in ruins and comes across a memorial plaque, which has his name spray painted on it. He also finds arrows pointing in different directions throughout the building, only to find Blofeld standing behind bullet proof glass. After Bond shoots at Blofeld and it hits the glass, Blofeld then arms a bomb that he has crafted and tells Bond that he has 3:00 minutes to evacuate the building before it explodes (he is also tasked with finding Dr. Swann, who is held hostage somewhere within the building). Bond finds Dr. Swann in a nearby room, unties her and they escape, with not a second to spare, as the MI6 building completely implodes behind them as they escape in a fully functional boat that they just so happened to find within the dilapidated building (another small plot hole). With that being said, the fact that Blofeld knew that Bond would be there not only contradicts his faith in his own men, but the fact that it would be literally impossible to determine that, especially being that he had no leads indicating that Bond would even be there. Blofeld's last scene was also pretty disappointing, too, considering the fact that Bond didn't even throw so much as a punch toward him. Instead, M only had him arrested. Besides that, as mentioned, Bond somehow reunites with Dr. Swann and they are seen walking away from the bridge. The film ends with Bond walking into Q's quarters. They have a brief conversation and the film ends. To even have Blofeld as Bond's "half brother" is ridiculous...and it totally contradicts all of the Bond films of the past. Not a very climactic ending at all, in my opinion.

The title SPECTRE brought back the bond series back to its origin, James Bond.

With SPECTRE, our eyes could finally fixed again on this convergence of masculinity. The film deliberately unwind the clocks back to somewhat days in 70s or even 60s with character's clothing, environment, cars and setup. This was the golden era of James bond and his movie when audience focused more on the plot.

You could tell the producers had taken an enormous amount of strength in order to discard what they have been using to entertain their audience in the last 10 years, no weird gadget, no multi- purpose cars, no gorgeous babe and large amount of street chasing scenes. They were twisting the plot and making great use of sound effect in order to intensify the whole movie aura in this film. I could told you they were very successful in turning the film from a action blaster into an intense agent film where danger lures everywhere.

I had a good time enjoying the old time scene from this movie. And last but not least, Léa Seydoux appearance was astounding and elegant in the movie.

After receiving a message from the past, and going against orders from M, Bond goes rogue to seek out someone, or something known only as the The Pale King.

This leads Bond on his own dangerous territory, leading him to the most personal mission he has ever faced.......

After the behemoth that was Skyfall, Spectre was always going to have the shadow of that film in its way. And thank goodness that Mendes and company haven't tried to go bigger, because that was the problem with Brosnans' cannon, and we ended up with invisible cars....

It seems the motto here is 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' and from the sublime pre-credits sequence, which references the wonderful opening to 'Touch Of Evil' , you can assure yourself that this is Craig's best since Skyfall.

Disregarding the blatant product placement, and once again referencing Goldfinger within an inch of its life, it's the subtle references that make you appreciate the fact that the makers, love Bond and know what a wonderful institution the series is.

Set pieces are on par with all the best bond has given us, from the car chase with some real laugh out loud humour during it, letting the viewer know that Bond maybe alone with little help and limited resources, but he still has that confidence and swagger to know he will get out if the situation with ease, especially when he is more concerned with whom Moneypenny is with.

The most important thing that this film has that the last three didn't have much of, is humour, and although Craig looks uneasy with the humour to begin with, the moment he says 'good evening' to a street cleaner, he nails the rest of it. This is his best portrayal of Bond, he owns the role, and he knows it.

So kudos to Fiennes, Whishaw, and Harris for stealing the film completely from him. For some bizarre reason, the film feels that little more special when we are dealing with 00 closure subplot, as it goes back to the classic feel if the more earlier bonds, and most importantly, Fleming's literature.

Bautista is good as the henchman, Craigs Bond has always needed one, but he does feel a tad familiar, like OddJob, Jaws, and Stamper raised a child together. But despite only uttering one word, he certainly has presence, and the fight on the train subtlety references LALD, and FRWL.

Waltz has very little screen time as the antagonist, but again, he is a wonderfully smug little man who doesn't wear socks, and his normality throughout, makes him all that more psychotic. He not in the film much, but as a character says to Bond 'he's everywhere'.

My only gripes are that Seydoux is a little bland, and although she comes across as hardened to the world female, she falls for Bond pretty quickly.

And the last one, is that there are two major plot points that are spoon fed to us. When Q gives Bond the watch (the funniest scene in the film), he says 'the alarm is very loud'. He may as well have said 'you'll use that to save you from a certain death'.

And Fiennes says to C regarding the termination of the 00 programme 'it's also a license not to kill'. Again, he may as well have said 'I bet you out of all the people in the film, Bond doesn't kill the one who caused him the most pain in these four films'.

Minor quibbles, but they do detract you from the film a little.

So all in all, it wraps up all of Craig's entries nicely, there is a wonderful treat for major Bond fans in a big twist, and although he is a wonderful Bond, if Craig chooses not to make another, this will be a perfect swan song.

It's a wonderful film.

I grew up the on the 007 films and books starting in the early 70's. Since then, of course, I have seen every Bond film there is and read almost all of the books. This is far from anything I that grew up with, as were all of the Daniel Craig/007 films. As with the first two, I found very little to like with this one.

The Bond/007 formula has been completely removed from every one of Craig's films, leaving us with little more than just another action film that's hardly engaging. At least with this one there was promise of the 007 gadgets. However, even that was a big disappointment.

The music was equally disappointing and hardly worthy of a Bond film. And though this last film did have the Bond theme, it was only utilized at the beginning and the very end. The remainder of the film's score was less than memorable or complimentary to the experience.

As for the characters, all of them have been redone to fit someone's idea of a new age and not one of them is interesting or enticing.

Whoever put this film and its two predecessors together only wishes they had half the artistic quality, imagination and production capability that it took to produce the first 20 years of Bond and captivate generations to come.

As I come to a close, I'd like to say this last installment was so long and boring that I had a very difficult time staying awake for whole thing. The only reason I tried was because I hoped to see something I might like about the film. Unfortunately my effort was in vain and I did not.

The last thing I'd like to say here is that I wish the folks at Hollywood would quit trying to change and remake everything I grew up with just to impress the new generations. For whatever reason they can't seem to figure out how to do it right and they are failing on an epic scale with every effort.

Spectre is a mess. The movie opens with a rolling shot in Mexico which is stolen from legendary Orson Welles' Touch of Evil opening scene (youtube it).

SPOILERS AHEAD: Then we head off to Rome. A car chase with the two sexiest cars on the planet is ruined by the music, i would rather hear the cars! The music in general is straight out of Skyfall which isn't a bad thing because it creates a link to that film.

Sam Mendes enjoys ruining every scene by having two or three story lines happening at the same time and all edited into each other. Such as in Skyfall, the opening scene had Bond fighting on a train, Moneypenny doing her best school run in a Land Rover and M in London shouting into Bond's ear every 2 minutes. 3 things all happening at the same time! Spectre is no different.

Biggest irritant of Skyfall and Spectre is how slow the dialogues are. It seems ages for the next person to speak/reply. Bond says something in his slow manner then you could go and make a cup of tea come back and you wouldn't have missed the reply by the other character. the gaps are so wide it annoys me. This is acceptable and usually happens in theater because it is live, there are nerves, distractions or even forgetfulness but it is so dull in a recorded motion picture. it should be fast and draw you in, keep you interested.

Spectre is like a fan-made bond movie edited with an episode of Spooks (UK TV series).

The movie has some witty moments and dry English humour which adds to the film but the whole film feels badly made and cheap. Where did all the money go? The script isn't as bad as i was expecting it to be after reading some early reviews. It had its clever moments but silly and simple mistakes were made. Better word choices would have lifted the film. It all seemed so rushed.

The title song, not that it matters, was beautifully written and the instrument arrangement was spectacular but the vocals were painful to the ear. It wass like listening to opera at the wrong speed.

The cast look old and tired. They all seem bored. This could have been an excellent movie but it doesn't bother to be one, it's a new uber-hyped Bond movie, everyone will go to see it even if you tell them it was rubbish. There are enough hardcore Bond fans around the world to make its money back without having to try much. Bond movies have a formula and that appeals to many.

Lets face it Bond is a killer and we enjoy watching him kill in the name of 'good'. It is our fantasy world where we celebrate cold blooded murder in the name of politics and national security when lets be honest here, there is no threat, what do we care if someone wants to takeover a pipeline or water company in the middle of nowhere.

Bond is starting to show its age and they are running out of ideas and the fact that we don't have any real enemies anymore, Bond seems useless as ever. It worked well during the cold war but now this illuminati chasing Bond is having a hard time. So now we have become more interested in Bond's past. To be honest I couldn't care, i would rather be entertained at the cinema.

Skyfall was awful but visually it was stunning, Spectre is similar but doesn't look half as good as Skyfall. You could edit both movies into one then you might have a half decent Bond movie.

The ending of Spectre is tragic, it is so terrible it angers me just thinking of it. How the hell do you shoot down a helicopter half a mile away with a .380auto gun?! What were they thinking of! But then again this movie has a storyline stolen from Austin Powers, that says it all.

Mr Waltz was poor and very one dimensional, he just didn't come across as someone with a painful past or evil tendencies. He did it well in Inglourious Basterds though. (Being Austrian and wearing a German uniform naturally added to the part) Please let this be Sam Mendes last Bond movie, he still thinks it is 1935, i want to see an ultra smooth ultra modern Bond. Makes no difference to me personally if Mr Craig does another one or not but if i had to choose, i hope Spectre was his last.

I give it a 1 for the crew who were the real talent of this movie, their work and effort is visibly enjoyed.

The next Bond movie must update the character, a young bond, perhaps introduce a female '00' to work with 007. No more DB5, give him a current vehicle, doesn't even have to be an Aston, maybe an AMG Benz. Get rid of the .380 peashooter. Give Bond a Glock 43 or a Beretta Nano. Make him in his late 20's add some youthfulness to the franchise, and no more bedding every woman he speaks to for 5 minutes.

okok i'll shut up now, just frustrated with all of this 'real bond' nonsense.

I admit I prefer 007 as some sort of British-accented, Tuxedo-wearing android who travels around the world shooting bad guys and delivering witticisms. Spectre, much like On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Licence To Kill and the last acts of Casino Royale and Skyfall, is about a more human James Bond, an actual person with a past, someone who needs to cope with love and loss: this is the most continuity-heavy Bond movie ever, with constant references to the last films. Not my favorite approach to Bond - to quote Fleming "Surround yourself with human beings, dear James. They're easier to fight for than principles. But don't let me down and become human yourself. We would lose a wonderful machine" - but it's competently done here.

(Only, ENOUGH with Bond's sorrow over Vesper Lynd. It's become more repetitive an affectation than the "shaken not stirred" Martini).

Overall, I'd rate this lower than Casino Royale and Skyfall and higher than Quantum Of Solace. Craig and main girl Seydoux are solid; Waltz is predictably fine as Blofeld - I love the quietly mischievous way he delivers his lines. Bautista is an effective old-school henchman.

Visually, the most interesting moment is the first sequence, a one-take shot which brings Bond from the streets of Mexico City to a hotel room and finally to the rooftop where he tracks down his target. In general, the first two acts of Spectre are entertaining; however, by the time Bond shows up at the villain's secret lair and pretty much knocks at the door with no plan whatsoever, the movie lost me and only Waltz kept me engaged. Spectre also follows the school of thought that a blockbuster isn't bloated enough if it features just one narrative climax, so we get two.

(Incidentally, you say Blofeld's machine will impair Bond's sense of equilibrium, you need to SHOW IT in the next action scene. Set-up and pay-off, anyone?)

While the sadistic final choice Bond faces is compelling, the ending is rather bland: without giving away major spoilers, I'll just say that, considering Spectre's dark tone, I was hoping for something far braver.

6/10

From the outset I own up to a strongly held opinion that Daniel Craig is miscast as James Bond. I grew up to love the Bond franchise with the double punch icons of suavity and cool, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, following on the ground breaking Sean Connery, who was, however, before my time. Craig is anything but 007. He is wooden, brutal and unconvincing with women. His forte is his physique and pure action thrillers which this Spectre is not. The protracted and underwhelming opening scene is followed by a reasonable title sequence but with a deadbeat song. The main course is a mouse riddled Swiss cheese historical reenactment with appropriate ham-fisted acting to go with it. I was actually repelled by the inflatable Teflon coated mannequins regurgitating prerecorded answering machine messages. I was itching to push the button to finish off the Bond impostor with that generic recycled dental drill. The brutal boardroom scene by Mr Hinx was uncalled for and is well beyond the 12A rating this franchise usually aims for. The non-story dragged on, with no quick one liners to keep me from jabbing at my popcorn for entertainment. The phallic car did make me sit up, but instead of running out of ammo, actually had none. The sexually dysfunctional strap-on frustratingly fizzling out of sight in the river is a symbolic sad end to the Bond franchise.

Daniel Craig returns to his role as the International Man of Mystery super spy James Bond in Spectre. Spectre is the name of a super secret evil organization. I believe the organization first appeared in Thunderball (1965) but it never became more than an occasional reference. In this iteration of the franchise, however, Bond has to take the villainous conglomerate head on and, let me tell you, he does so with an unbridled lackadaisy.

Quite honestly, there isn't anything noteworthy about Spectre. It's almost like the filmmakers said, "Alright, well, we don't have any ideas for James Bond right now so let's just have him go after that big villain organization. What was the name of it? Octopus? Ghost? Oh yeah, Spectre!" It comes across as a poor attempt to increase the stakes. It seems silly though, after all, a poker game could be made exciting; it's all about how you do it.

But, in any case, artificially making the stakes bigger (or attempting to) happens throughout the movie: Bond gets a fancy new Aston Martin DB10 (made especially for this movie), he uncovers secrets about his upbringing, and in the introduction, he blows up an entire city block. All this and it still falls flat.

It seems like everyone involved phoned in for this film. I'm not just talking about the performances. Consider the one of the main subplots for this film. The 00 program is being phased out by a new department of the government that focuses on having a complete digital surveillance network cough NSA cough. "Is the 00 Program too old fashioned?" Now, wait a sec. The plot for Skyfall (a previous Daniel Craig-Bond movie) focused heavily on the government questioning the relevancy of the 00 program too.

One of Spectre's the colorful villains is the assassin Hinx played by Dave Bautista. He's a giant guy with metal thumbnails. Have the villains always been this silly?

Odd Job - a nigh unintelligible body guard who throws a metal bowler. Jaws - a giant tough guy who has metal teeth. Pussy Galore - a woman actually named Pussy Galore.

Alright, alright. Maybe this villain wasn't that silly…

So, in the interest of our discussion, let me get to some spoilers so we can really talk about this move. In sum, don't see Spectre. If you're a Bond fan, I'm sure you've already seen this but if you haven't, don't worry about it; there are plenty of other, better Bond movies. Maybe it was a shift in tone. Up to this point, Daniel Craig as James Bond was super serious Bond, but from the cheesy lines, to the weak dialog, Spectre feels like a poorly executed throwback. Now, let's get to some nittygritty details (mind yourself of spoilers).

Let's consider Christoph Waltz's character and his catchphrase. The scene is set for a sinister villain meeting; villainous figures sit in a big room discussing recent successful assassinations. A big door opens and, shrouded in darkness, the ringleader enters. Yadda yadda yadda the villain welcomes the hitherto hidden James Bond (to the shock of no one but James). The villain sits forward into the light, looks menacingly up at James and says "Cuckoo." Clearly, that's supposed to be a villainous catch phrase but it isn't very successful.

Now, in much the same way that I looked at other Bond henchmen, the catch phrases from James Bond characters aren't the best; lot's of innuendo or little singers. The first example that comes to mind is a fight scene where a thug falls into a bath tub. Acting quickly, Bond throws a lamp into the water and electrocutes the baddie. Bond looks and says, "Shocking." It's quick, cheesy, but it does it's job. To understand what 'cuckoo' means, we have to wait the entire movie until the villain gives an extended monologue (according to IMDb):

Blofeld: You know what happens when a cuckoo hatches inside another bird's nest? Madeleine Swann: Yes. It forces the other eggs out. Blofeld: Yes. Well, this cuckoo made me realize my father's life had to end. In a way he's responsible for the path I took... (to Bond) Blofeld: So thank you, cuckoo!

"Cuckoo"? More like "contrived." But seriously, it feels like a plot device that the writers thought would be totally cool because it bookends the interactions between the characters. Only the movie goes on for another half hour. Moreover, it's meaningless without the explanation and, once provided, doesn't feel satisfying.

One last point, that I'd like to bring up is the intro sequence. The Bond franchise is famous (or infamous) for it's introductions. They are always stylized in a way that fits into the movie. Consider the theme for Casino Royale. The main plot device in the film is a poker game so the intro features bullets in the shapes of spades piercing figures who fall apart into little hearts, etc. They can be enjoyable because sometimes they foreshadow the movie.

In line with the rest of the film, Spectre's intro is lame. I was going to try and find a more sophisticated word but lame works. Instead of being stylized in a neat way, it's just clear images of Bond, women and nigh literal scenes of the preceding film, with the modification of octopi. Instead of a bikini – an octopus is wrapped around a woman's body. Instead of a pillar – a tentacle. Instead of shadow cast by a hand - it's an octopus. I mean, I get it guys, the mascot of the secrete organization is an octopus but sheesh, let's tone it down a little.

So, what do you think? Did you see Spectre? Follow up question if you have, are you a fan of Bond movies? Let me know in the comments below! Thanks for reading!

Spectre Movie Review The 24th Bond movie in the film franchise had big aspirations when they decided to bring back the classic Bond enemy organization, known as Spectre. The opening scene, for the first 2 minutes, looked like one consecutive shot, and the visuals in Mexico City looked great. It really brings you into the movie and gives you a great set up. However, it doesn't reflect the tone of the rest of the movie.

On that note, neither does the famous Bond credits sequence. No offense to Sam Smith but the song that was chosen just doesn't work for me. It's hard to compete with Adele, but Smith's song feels a bit too similar to Skyfall, only not as great. There are a few good musical cues but overall it just a bit lack luster and doesn't really reflect the movie. The visual sequence that accompanies the song is not really any better. It hits you over the head with the octopus theme by showing multiple visuals involving an octopus figure. We get it, Spectre's logo is the octopus, we could tell from the silver ring that Bond takes at the end of the opening scene. It just feels silly and unnecessary.

When Christophe Waltz was announced to play the villain in Spectre, I thought that it was a great decision because he's played the bad guy role so well before. The problem is not with the actor but rather the character. He becomes a generic Bond villain, less engaging than Javier Bardem's Mr. Silva from Skyfall. There is no mystery with the character, even though the movie tries to make it a mystery of who he is; but it's very predictable. Speaking of villains, another under utilized villain was Dave Bautista's, Mr. Hinx, whose name is never mentioned in the movie. Mr. Hinx is a silent henchman reminiscent of Oddjob from Goldfinger. The difference is again what they gave the villain to do or in this case not do. At least Oddjob had the hat that could slice things off, Mr. Hinx seems replaceable. Another thing the movie failed at was hiring actor Andrew Scott, known for playing the villain Moriaty on BBC's Sherlock. They mine as well put a sign on his characters head. They're fooling nobody with this casting choice.

Even though there is a lot of "bad" in the movie, that doesn't mean that I thought every thing was bad. I really enjoyed Q's role in this movie, being the classic gadget giving Q as well as taking a more active role in Bond's mission. The actor Ben Wishaw, who plays Q, is great in the role, playing the nerdy scientist but bringing a new refreshing take on the character and how he interacts with Bond. Similarly I also enjoyed the new incarnation of Moneypenny, who also becomes more involved with the mission. While I will miss Judy Dench as M, I did think Ralph Fiennes did a good job in the role.

The action scenes in the movie are hit and miss, there's a few good throwbacks to some classic Bond tropes and scenes. While I do like Daniel Craig's Bond, he seems to be a bit out of it for most of this movie and it shows. The last problem I had with the movie was the main "Bond girl", I felt the two had no chemistry and it didn't make sense why she would be on the mission with him. This movie is trying to set up that Bond has moved on from his love in Casino Royale, Vesper Lynn, and that maybe he can leave his spy life behind. The message is clear; however I don't think that it was executed very well.

While I may not think that this is the best Bond movie every, and I've noted the many problems that I had with it, there is also enough good for me to enjoy it overall. Being the longest of the Bond movies probably doesn't help with the pacing, but this is not the worst Bond movie ever. I believe there is enough good in this movie that it should be seen at least once.

We all love Bond where he does something seemingly impossible to save the world, or even just the girl. Just as he pulls off another impossible stunt, and the Bond fanfare blasts through the air, you're up punching the air as Bond does it like nobody else!

Except with Spectre.

Every time it builds up to what should be a crescendo of excitement, it steps back. Where you should be shouting "YES!", it lets you down and you simply go "ah...".

Craig brought in a harder edged Bond, just perfect for the current times, but with Spectre they seem determined to go back to the Moore comedies. No shame in the Moore years; they were a product of their time. But now, we want Bond to be the cold ruthless killer that he can be, when he has to be. And in keeping with the books, always looking for that girl...

A prime example is the car chase, and how excited you were with anticipation of the unique DB10 and Jaguar cars? It should have been a ground breaking car chase, and they used up enough Aston Martins that there should be no excuses! Yet, they played this as a comedy and tempered the excitement of the chase by having Bond phoning Moneypenny. And, at the same time removed the "would they / wouldn't they" flirtation of Bond and Moneypenny that we've always wondered over. What should have been edge of your seats excitement was flat.

That's Spectre in one word: Flat. Nothing is ever allowed to excite or entertain you the way Bond should. It was as if Sam Mendes had taken his foot off the gas because he already had a superb Bond film in the bag with Skyfall (which had the best villain of any Bond film - effectively Bond vs Bond). That harder edge we have all enjoyed with Craig was replaced by light entertainment.

The criminal mastermind behind Spectre failed to convince you. Nor his henchmen. Or the various pastiches to other Bond films which came across as a random jumble rather than carefully thought out plot devices. I fear I may be overly generous with my rating for Spectre, but I still love Bond films; just not so much this one.

What's best about Spectre? It makes you realise that Quantum of Solace wasn't that bad.

It has been three years now since Skyfall opened to rave reviews and became the most successful James Bond film to date. If anyone had any doubts that Daniel Craig had what it took to be 007, chances are they were silenced by Skyfall. The only question then was how to top it? The answer would seem to be equal parts look backwards and forwards with the release of Spectre, the twenty-fourth Bond film from Eon Productions and Craig's fourth outing as the British secret agent with a license to kill.

Craig's performance here, his first in any film post-Skyfall, combines all the best elements of his Bond performances to date. There's his agility in the action sequences which suits him well but also a more sensitive side that remains buried most of the time but does surface, perhaps more here than in any other Bond film including Skyfall, where Bond's past comes back to haunt him in more ways than one. Craig also gets the chance, for the first time since Casino Royale, to explore Bond's romantic side as well. Overall, there's a more confident feel to Craig's Bond this time around that comes through that serves both actor and film well.

One place where the film perhaps improves over Skyfall is in its leading female character in the form of up and coming French actress Léa Seydoux as Dr. Madeleine Swann. Swann certainly fits the more traditional Bond girl mold though without many of the clichés that go along with the role as she's clearly intelligent but there's also a vulnerability to her when she, like Bond, is forced to confront elements of her past that have remained buried for so long. It is that element that Seydoux plays marvelously as the character's layers are exposed. It also helps that Seydoux and Craig share some excellent chemistry together which makes their relationship all the more believable.

Perhaps the most interesting piece of casting was Christoph Waltz as its villain. Waltz certainly didn't disappoint though the character's identity was easily figured out by simply looking at the film's title. What is more interesting that his identity is Waltz's performance which makes this perhaps the best iteration of the character we've seen thanks to a performance that is never over the top but cool and calculating. He's not a physical match for Bond but is every bit his intellectual equal, something that Waltz seems to instinctively sense. The result is a solid performance and one that works well within the film.

The film's supporting cast is solid as well. There's the returning cast of Bond's MI6 allies including Ralph Fiennes as M and Ben Whishaw's excellent Q who continues to make an excellent foil for Craig's Bond. Joining the supporting cast for this film is Andrew Scott as British government official Max Denbigh and Dave Bautista as the henchman Hinx who both do well with the limited amount of material they're given to work with. One minor disappointment is that after the hype of Italian actress Monica Bellucci joining the cast, her role is effectively a cameo with a grand total of maybe seven minutes worth of screen time for a sequence that has an uncomfortable air to it.

Moving beyond the cast, Spectre features some of the best production values of any film in the franchise which perhaps isn't surprising given reports that this is the most expensive Bond film yet produced. The production design from Dennis Gassner and the cinematography of Hoyte Van Hoytema are superb at evoking not just the look but the feel of the film's varying locations which makes it a visual feast. There is also an impressive opening shot of the film which lasts a couple of minutes at least and might well be, on a technical level at least, one of the most impressive shots ever put into a Bond film. All of which are admirable to say the least.

After the impressive action sequences of Skyfall, Spectre had a challenge ahead of it. While it never tops previous Bond action sequences, it is certainly a thrill ride. From the slightly overblown opening chase in and above the celebrations for the Day Of The Dead to a car chase through Rome and a series of gun battles, the film puts all of the best action tropes of the series to good use though it never quite manages to top the same type of sequences which have come before. In a way that sums up the film itself rather nicely, especially in regards to its script.

The script is where Spectre is at its most mixed. Despite the return of the same writing team from Skyfall and the addition of Jez Butterworth to the writing team, the script lacks a sense of polish to it at times. While it does an admirable job of tying together the entire Craig era, the basic idea is bringing back elements that the series hasn't used in over forty years and bringing them into the present day. As a result, the script does little more than retread old territory and attempt to give it a new face, something that has often produced less than stellar results in the past such as A View To A Kill or Die Another Day. That isn't to say, as some have said, that this is the worst Bond film as it definitely isn't that but it seems to lack the spark that made Skyfall especially standout.

At the end of the day, Spectre is a good Bond film. It has a solid performance from Craig as well as the rest of the cast along with impressive production values and good action sequences. Yet its script seems to largely play it safe, retreading old territory while also tying together elements from previous films. Spectre is a good Bond film but one that should have been a great.

My wife was reluctant to see this movie and I drug her along all the while hoping it would be better than Skyfall. Thank goodness Sam Mendes has decided to move on because the franchise has gone decidedly downhill during his tenure. I had to apologize to my wife and I even feel dumber after sitting through this tripe. The plot alone has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. I can't believe people are saying it's the 'best Daniel Craig Bond movie ever'. Really? We're you not around for Casino Royale? That was a really fresh and gritty perspective on a tired franchise. Even Quantum had more teeth than this limp dishrag. Why o why do we have to return old Sean Connery/Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan paradigms with machine guns in cars and oh Lord the stupid white fluffy villain cat in Spectre...talk about stooping to new levels of corniness. How in the world do you fly a helicopter aerobatically when someone has the pilot in a headlock (opening scenes)? And I don't care how much of a crack shot you are; no one hits a moving helicopter with a pistol at that range not to mention taking an engine out with a .380...utterly ridiculous. Please don't tell me the argument is, " Well that's how Bond movies are supposed to be." It's Hollywood and yes I expect my beliefs to be suspended somewhat, but this was cartoonish bordering on comical buffoonery. I read where Daniel Craig has Bond 25 left in his contract. Lord I hope it's a return to where he started and not this dull blend of physically impossible feats and Tom Ford advertisement.

It all starts out with a typical prologue where Bond destroys some buildings, kills some people and escapes in some daring manner. Usually he retrieves a clue or hint to progress the main film.

Then the title song comes and you start to wonder if they ran out of money for something better. The song has vague lyrics and the singing is not all that great. (compared to most other Bond themes). The visuals are nice, but then they throw in references from the other Daniel Craig Bond movies and your first "oh no, not again" passes through your mind.

Yes, they try to tie all the movies together in some form of a coherent story. They do it so badly (and way too often), however, it is not only annoying, it does more harm than good.

Throughout the story Bond follows some vague leads and mostly out of good luck he gets out alive and with a new clue to where to go next, but it remains a bread crumbs kind of trail leading from one place to the other, where at no point I had the feeling Bond was in control.

The plot holes in the movie are so many and are so big you kind of wonder why the production houses let it pass. There's the street race through Rome where exotic sport cars are driving down some stairs. Highly unlikely they would be able to do that. In fact, knowing that Bond was coming to the meeting, I was surprised Bond got away in the first place. Another hole with the torture device of Blofeld where he mentions that with the next drilling Bond will loose all memories. So he drills and despite some excruciating pain for our hero, nothing happens. The fact that Bond somehow knows C is a bad guy (willingly and knowingly) involved in the plot. And what's up with the secret lair in the middle of the desert?

just to name a few...

The most disturbing plot development must have been the revelation of Bond and Blofeld being long lost brothers... The person who invented this twist should have been shot, after being put in the chair of Blofelds torture device. It is just -wrong-.

When it comes down to acting Daniel Craig is still one of the better Bonds and surely puts him down very well. The more sensitive/vulnerable Bond is certainly not to my disliking. But both Christoph Waltz as Léa Seydoux are disappointing.

So the end verdict is that, despite you should see it, it's a Bond movie after all, it failed to do what you would expect. But maybe that's just me.

James Bond (Daniel Craig) has finally made his way to the terrorist organization called Spectre, a uniform group with its members from all over the world, led by Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) who has a personal connection to the 007 agent. After an unsanctioned trip to Mexico City to stop a member of Spectre from using a bomb that would have been set off in a stadium full of people, which is accidentally exploded in a building containing terrorists, James Bond must answer for doing so without authorization from M (Ralph Fiennes), suspended from duty. However, Bond isn't mindful of such a penalty as time off, and instead follows orders from his former boss (Judi Dench) who had sent him a recording prior to her death...this is what initiated Bond's mission to Mexico City, which was only a start to what lied ahead. MoneyPenny (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Whishaw) reluctantly align themselves with Bond although their division in the British MI6 is rumored (and eventually are notified) to be shut down by a dangerous idealist, "C" (Max Denbigh, played by Andrew Scott), on the verge of forming an alliance with global powers in an effort to set up a spy network supposedly to "protect us all across the world". Max's agenda, however, could very well be sinister if implanted. Meanwhile, Blofeld has special plans for Bond who is trying to locate and eventually protect the daughter of a former member of Spectre, named Madeleine Snow (Léa Seydoux). Bond wants to find Blofeld and Blofeld has envisioned the opportunity to meet him, and "Spectre" brings them together. As you might expect, eventually their meeting would be rather explosive.

The Mexico City sequence opens "Spectre" with an absolute bang, as a building crumbles and collapses which winds up being eerily reminiscent to 9-11, and seeing Bond nearly perishing as his own building is took out by the domino effect is directed so magnificently, I can just hear the oooos and aahhs. Director Mendes' camera follows Bond in what seemed like an extended uninterrupted shot during the Day of the Dead in Mexico City as the locals are all in costume, and 007 walks into a hotel with an attractive woman on his shoulder, in a room that had a window that leads to a ledge he walks directly to a spot which is a direct bead to a room containing the Spectre member he is targeting for termination. This whole opening set piece ends with Bond and his quarry moving through a crowd in the city during the celebration until both are fighting in a chopper over the crowd! The battle between Craig and former pro-wrestler Batista in a train (after the latter leads a car chase after Bond during a high speed affair in Rome which itself is a thrill ride) with Seydoux getting involved, and the headquarters of Blofeld going up in flames thanks to a watch that packs a punch (Q provided to Bond prior to fleeing to Rome despite orders from M to stay in London), as it appears Bond's gig is up (he's bolted to a chair as Blofeld plans to use small drills to torture Bond through commands into a computer), are highlights. Also featured is Bond chasing after Batista and some of Blofeld's henchmen who kidnap Seydoux from her clinic in Austria by way of a plane (they in SUVs) and Bond needing to rescue Snow from the set-to-be-demolished MI6 building in London before it detonates (thanks to Blofeld who suffers a nasty scar on the side of his face, ruining his eye). Waltz, no surprise, knocks it out of the park as Blofeld, the ultimate nemesis of Bond, sociopathic and stone cold when it comes to doing whatever is necessary against 007 and to gain global power. The way Blofeld reminds Bond of how he has killed all those he loves over and over truly emphasizes his cold blooded nature.

Waltz is a good casting choice for the villain, confident and smooth, but his Blofeld's obsession with bond ultimately is his downfall. Batista has the right brutish body type perfect for a bruising heel used to give Bond a hard time…not needing to talk, he has this intimidating presence that is important to the role he is cast. Fiennes getting to play hero at the end when facing off with Scott is a treat, as well. Scott is one of those who manipulated his way into a prominent position, using that power as an intentional nuisance to M and his team.

As Bond's arch nemesis and antagonism over in Ernest Blofield there and in how that James Bond could be in meeting his match there.

While we see him the Daniel Craigh fourth to last film of the 007 there, and that it shows a more emotional side to Craig's JB there.

As he may have found his true lady love after so many lady loves in a French woman Madeline Swann played by Lea Seydoux as Monica Bellucci only has up to five to ten minutes of screen time as a not so grieving widow of a mobster.

When a cryptic message leads him from Mexico City to Rome Italy to the sinister organization hence the title there. Waltz makes a great villain there as he makes his appearance in the next film some six years later.

What I resented most about this movie was a complete lack of originality, a plot line that all-so conveniently connects everything together from the last Craig movies, making this one sound like it's clever when it's just easy to say. It's a total fake, an unoriginal, a fraud. Don't get me wrong, it's beautiful to look at, but it's empty. Absolutely empty. Where it tries to be clever, it comes up empty. Basically, they slapped the name Bond on it, said that everything was somehow conveniently connected to one another (how brilliant! sigh :/ ) and dress it up with beautiful cinematography. One of the worst films I've ever seen. Predictable and whenever they tried to make something significant, it ended up being oh so silly.

Another fine addition to the Bond collection, I was not impressed by the opening music but never mind, nothing can top Adele's Skyfall in my opinion, the film itself was very interesting the only plot hole was that Blofeld was supposed to have wiped Bond's recollection of anyone with the second needle and yet it appears to have done nothing, he immediately sees and remembers his girlfriend and still remembers how to fly a helicopter mere moments later, I did think this film was brilliant however, shakes up classic Bond in a good way, Daniel Craig is such a good James Bond.

I am a big fan of the James Bond franchise and was very excited to see this film.

I was very disappointed. Not only did they mess with the opening credits (I did love the octopus imagery)but the premise for the story was diabolical.

BOO HOO........ so his nemesis, Oberhauser, hates him and has set out to destroy James' life all because James spent 2 years living with Oberhauser and his father, when James' parents died.... and because Oberhauser's father treated James like a son. What the heck....... that's the reason.... wrote wrote this rubbish.

The next James Bond film had better have a better plot.

When I walked out of my first viewing of Casino Royale, I declared to a person I had gone with the very simple truth of the matter. That is how Bond should have been from the get-go. No fantasy "shag-me-baby" Austin ****facing, no romancing of the trade of being Her Majesty's Secret Killer. Just the brutal reality as conveyed through making Bond watch his girlfriend die and endure one of the most terrifying tortures a Human male can undergo. For the first time, Bond was as grounded in reality as his premise needed him to be. Other Bonds, namely Lazenby and Dalton, went towards it, but Casino Royale was the first Bond film to dive in with both hands out. The problem is that after one rushed, truly insipid sequel that introduced shaky-cam to the Bond universe, and was derided as it deserved, the producers panicked. Skyfall had most of the things that made Casino Royale great. A truly memorable villain who challenged Bond in truly important ways, a sense of consequence, and the knowledge that the hole in Bond's soul grows that little bit bigger every time we see him.

Unfortunately, it also gave us what I will call "resurrections" of everything that I came to despise about Bond. The new Q looked like he really ought to be terrified of Bond, the new M, at least in Skyfall, looked like the sort of person Bond would break over his knee on the way to the main villain, and people in the audience could see me wincing every time the new Moneypenny spoke. Which brings us to Spectre. I call it a tale of two films because once you watch past a certain point, it becomes evident that two scripts were meshed together in order to make this story, and the fit is not a good one. The first half of the film, accounting for a hundred minutes or so, is exactly what I had been hoping for since Casino Royale and mostly got in Skyfall. A slow boiler in which Bond is pushed to his psychological limits and shows us through his eyes that even when you do it for King and Country, killing people can have consequences that last the rest of your life. But there is a certain point in the film, after Bond gets off a train in a desert, where I encourage everyone to stop watching. Go out the door and imagine your own ending.

Because when that point in the film arrives, complete with a clunky, ineffective attempt to recreate the awesome torture sequence that had every male in the audience weeping sympathetic tears, it all comes apart in a big hurry. It is still entertaining, do not get me wrong, but it is to Casino Royale as RoboCop 3 (or RoboCop in name only as it should have been titled) is to RoboCop. The Casino Royale sequence, as I said, made every individual with those bits in the audience grind their teeth in sympathy with Bond. The attempt to recall this sequence in Spectre, which brings to my mind the Get Smart joke "I murdered my dentist", is limp-wristed and ineffective. It may as well have had Roger Moore in it. And it gets worse from there. From the equally tension-free escape onwards, you might as well paint an S on Bond's chest and be done with it. Or call him James Rambond. Take your pick. Rambond. James Rambond. Yes, Casino Royale had him surviving things that have you desperately holding onto your disbelief, trying to stop it from breaking its leash. But Spectre subjects you to around 30-50 minutes of them.

To be fair, Moneypenny gets better things to do this time than make the audience ask her to shut the hell up. But she also gets some lines about Bond just getting started that make an intelligent viewer want to rip their seat out of the floor and throw it at her enormous mouth. And Rafe-M shows us he is able to be more than just Bond-nagger. But in the end, the second component of this uneasy blend demonstrates to us that true to the form they have been in for all but one of the prior 23 films, the Bond producers are cowards and will only try new things when their proverbials are to the wall. The Rambond half of the film is only comparable to Pierce Brosnan Bond at its best, and that is so far below the best of what Daniel Craig has offered thus far, there is just no comparison. The less we say about our main villain, the better.

Daniel Craig apparently is a co-producer in this affair. And he has but one film left in his contract. So if I could tell him what I wish he would do in the next film, it is this. Make the rest of the Bond production team go back to what made Casino Royale, most of Skyfall, and the first chunk of Spectre so great. Make Bond an ordinary man who has to endure the absolute limits of what men can be pushed to. Make him suffer the consequences of his professional choices, and make the audience feel it with him. Because the more consequence-free Bond is (as demonstrated in Other Half Of Spectre), the less he works as entertainment. Spectre could have ascended to be the Fury Road of this franchise. Instead, it is just another above-average.

"Skyfall" offered a lot, even if you don't particularly like Daniel Craig as Bond, or even if you grew up on the old-school Bond films. First and foremost it had a good story to tell. It finally felt that the Bond franchise managed to go fully beyond its formula without losing own unique style. No wonder Timothy Dalton suggested the Academy should finally award Bond with Oscar. Well, it seems they lost their only chance as "Spectre" feels like a total disappointment when compared to "Skyfall".

The plot is very thin, to say the least. As a matter of fact there is almost no plot at all. Bond is going after Blofeld, who as it turns out hates Bond because... his daddy liked him better when they were both kids... No, seriously! Here we deal again with Freudian mambo-jumbo, and in a simplest possible way! The story centers around Bond going after Blofeld and sadly lacks either drama or suspense, because every single person in the audience knows that the man Bond is looking for...is Blofeld, even Bond knows that. All this makes rather boring and too predictable, even as for a Bond picture.

The subplot with C-section overtaking M-section could be a life-rescuing injection for the film but due to a terrible miscasting it is not. Unfortunately Andrew Scott as C can't shake off his Moriarty image and simply lacks charisma as a nemesis for Ralph Fiennes' M. Come on, there should be an actor of some authority to face Ralph Fiennes. I imagine the likes of Damian Lewis or Idris Elba in that role.

Okay, back to the main story: while looking for Blofeld, Bond meets two girls, actually, one woman and one girl. Woman being Monica Belluci who does her usual thing looking aloof. She's about 10 minutes on screen and does completely nothing for the plot. In a nutshell: Bond looks at her, saves her and spends the night with her, and all this happens on the day of her husband's funeral, which makes her character totally unbelievable. I understand producers wanted Belucci to boost publicity, but why did she bother? Really... The girl - Lea Seydoux - is supposed to look vulnerable, but sorry, it doesn't work at all. She just looks cold and we never get to understand what motivates her very sudden change... one moment she dislikes and doesn't trust Bond, and the next one, after changing her dress for a dinner, she's happy, and smiling, and ready for anything Bond wants from her... which is a kiss. Sadly there is no chemistry between Craig and Seydoux (they don't even come close to the fantastic chemistry between Bond and Vesper Lynd in "Casino Royale"!).

There's usually a lot of moaning about old Bond films, especially those with Roger Moore as 007, but when you compare Bond's affair with, say, Melina Havelock (Carole Bouquet) in "For Your Eyes Only", or his debut affair with Solitaire in "Live and Let Die", it just hurts how bad Craig and Seydoux turn out. In my humble opinion there is no comparison at all. But the lowest point of the film (not mentioning risky decision to recycle scenes from previous Bond films - must have been fun for John Logan and Sam Mendes, but the audience may feel deceived) is the climax of the story, again lacking suspense and excitement. The torture scene, although based on a good premise, would do with some Hitchcockian editing and in the final sequence with Bond looking for Lea, he finds her way too easily.

Any advantages? Very nice photography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (beutifully shot Mexico) and good performance by Christoph Waltz, who portrays Blofeld not so much as a cold-hearted villain but rather as a psycho. Still it seems a wasted opportunity as there could be more psychological tension between Bond and Blofeld.

All in all "Spectre" is definitely the least entertaining entry in Craig-era Bond series.

I was surprised by all the bad reviews and ratings I've read about this film, and there seem to be quite a lot, I enjoyed it.

Like any film nowadays it wasn't perfect. It had had it's dull parts and at times the plot was a little predictable, but it also had some quite enjoyable action sequences and the story wasn't that overly boring.

The characters were used well and were definitely not as flat and boring as some from previous bond films, and it revisited the character of Blofeld and his link to the character of James' younger years. It also delved a bit into the Spectre organization and it's attempts to infiltrate the governments of the world.

So on the whole I thought it was a decent film, and for anyone deciding on this film, I'd recommend you see it as I think you'd enjoy it, it's one I will watch again...

... and rows of Multiplex seats filled with the popcorn brigade watching this worldwide, How bad is it? Let me count the ways; first off it takes six writers to come up with The Spy Who Went Into The Cold or, to put it another way, to rip off John Le Carre inasmuch as this could just as easily have featured Daniel Craig as Alec Leams, seemingly on the outs with his Masters but in reality under cover on a secret 'mission' and working with the clandestine blessing of 'M'. As if that weren't enough they have no respect for the audience; example 1: Bond and Dr. Swan are in the middle of East Jesus in just the clothes they stand up in, next moment they'b both managed to change and only a little later in what is essentially the same sequence Bond appears in a tuxedo and Swan in an evening dress and a little later STILL, they have acquired luggage. example 2: Swan is kidnapped from under Bond's nose in the middle of a city; the kidnappers make off in three cars and within minutes are being pursued by Bond NOW PILOTING A PLANE. Where did it come from? Where did it take off from in such an urban setting. No doubt the popcorn brigade won't allow reality to spoil their enjoyment.

CONTAINS SPOILERS

I shouldn't have been surprised really. Same director as the truly atrocious and plot-hole-filled Skyfall, plus several different screenwriters, a budget and hype-machine in overdrive, and sycophantic reviews from allegedly "professional" film critics. It astounds me how movies like this garner just unabashed gushing praise from critics and moviegoers alike. Please just open your eyes and your brains, for god's sake people! Once again we are given a Bond movie that has been delivered by committee - a story by several different writers, a director with no real understanding of Bond, and Hollywood money-men clearly more interested in making sure all the vast sums of cash that've been spent is on locations, instead of sparing any at all for a decent plot and a shred of realism. Much like Skyfall, this is nothing more than some admittedly gorgeous and well shot locations being used to showcase some very mediocre and often nonsensical action scenes and plodding exposition, that serve no point other than to set up the next location/scene. The plot is toilet-paper thin and it's this that gives rise to my belief that this is the "S0d it, that'll do" Bond movie, because I'm pretty sure that's what Sam Mendes said on a daily basis shooting this piece of junk.

You can imagine a production meeting -

Production Assistant : "OK, so Bond kills a guy in Mexico at the beginning of the movie. Why does he do it?"

Sam Mendes : "OK, how about Dead M leaves him a 5 second video asking him to do it? Yes? No? S0d it, that'll do!"

It's all very reminiscent of how in Skyfall Bond needs to find the guy who shot him with the depleted uranium round - the guy who was apparently a "ghost" with no known country of origin. Pretty fortunate then that London not only knew he was going to be in Hong Kong the next day, but even what flight he was arriving on! How very handy.

I said this about Skyfall and I say it again for Spectre, but Sam Mendes is a lazy film-maker. The way Bond finds his way from one set-piece to the next has more in common with Scooby-Doo than any real espionage (or heaven forbid, a plot). But then it seems far too many cinema-goers these days just go to watch things going bang, and sadly Hollywood is more than happy to pander to this.

The other thing that really irritated me was how unrealistic it all was, despite allegedly maintaining the "grittiness" that was so expertly introduced in Casino Royale. For example, the fight with Hinx on the train resulted in Bond taking a pasting....but not a single cut or bruise afterwards. Contrast that to the superb stairwell fight in Casino Royale and the difference is immense.

Other examples of lazy and/or pathetic film making, in no particular order -

1) The pathetic "dentist chair" torture device that Blofeld uses on Bond. The first "drill" into his skull was apparently going to "disrupt his sight, hearing and balance" - no effect on Bond at all. The second "drill" was supposed to make him forget the faces of people he knows. Does it work? Nope. A second later Bond is free, still recognising everyone around him, and he can still to run, shoot and kill enemies at a distance without a care in the world. Amusing how at odds this scene was to the highly realistic (and infamous) "nut-whacking" scene in Casino Royale.

2) How did Mr White manage to build a secret room in the Tunisian L'Americain hotel with no-one noticing? And why did he do that anyway considering he apparently only went back there once a year? And how did Bond manage to break down the wall of the hotel in the middle of the night, with no-one from the hotel hearing?

3) How does Bond know where to go and how does he infiltrate Monica Bellucci's house and be ready to kill the Spectre assassins? Oh and as luck would have it she knows exactly where Spectre meet! Wow, how very fortunate!

4) How does Bond instantly find Mr White's chalet hideout, despite having no information other than Q telling him. "He was last sighted in Austria"? I mean, it's not like Austria's very big or anything! The "S0d it, that'll do" mentality in full effect.

5) The incredibly lack-lustre car chase in Rome. Gorgeous location but no sense of urgency or danger in the chase at all. Hell, Bond even has time to make a few mobile calls.

6) Why make Blofeld Bond's step-brother? Just.....why?

7) Why does Blofeld's "meteorite crater lair" completely explode after Bond shoots one simple gauge off the top of a pipe? It's apparently an information collection facility, not a fuel or high-explosives plant but it blows up after one easy shot! Lazy film-making.

The list is actually endless.

Lastly, I'm just tired of these "you're past it, Bond" story lines. It worked in Goldeneye as Bond had been away from our screens for a decade, so for M to call Brosnan's Bond "a misogynist dinosaur ; a relic of the cold war", was entirely accurate. But then the "Bond's past it" storyline reappears in Skyfall.... oh and then again in Spectre, although it's his whole department at risk this time. Time for new ideas guys!

I actually feel really sorry for Daniel Craig as I personally think Casino Royale is one of the best Bond movies ever made, and I really thought Craig's Bond could be the defining take on the character, but these last two movies represent some of the lowest points in Bond's celluloid career.

So in summary - it's marginally better than Skyfall, but it's still the 3rd worst Bond movie of all time. Not impressed at all. S0d it, that'll do.

This is Daniel Craig's fourth outing as James Bond and it's true that he has resurrected the franchise. The previous Bond movie, Skyfall, probably showed Craig at his peak in a story that was deeply emotional yet filled with all the action scenes we have all come to expect from a Bond production. Bond number 24 has a fantastic introduction followed by quite a few boring bits before coming to life again in the final third of the movie. It's hampered by an epic running time of close to two and a half hours so a 20-25 minute cut would have done no harm. A middling James Bond however is still better than many films of this genre.

James Bond (Daniel Craig) is in Mexico City during the Day of the Dead Festival to track down an assassin. His pursuit leads him to a global threat called Spectre which is an acronym for Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. This organization is headed by Franz Oberhauser (Chistoph Waltz), who is out to eliminate Bond and those closest to him. With the help of regulars M (Ralph Fiennes), Q (Ben Whishaw) and Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), Bond must eliminate this organization to prevent a global disaster and to stop Franz from killing his new love interest, Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux). To complicate matters, a new British intelligence official with ulterior motives, C (Andrew Scott), proposes that Bond and his colleagues are becoming obsolete.

The opening is promising with one tracking shot that lasts about five minutes, showing Bond on the streets of the Day of the Dead Festival in Mexico City and taking him to the roof of a hotel where he is about to kill his target. Thousands of extras were used for this sequence in Mexico with the helicopter hovering above the crowd adding to the tension and excitement. The customary Bond opening titles then give way to many scenes that simply cannot sustain the brilliance of the introduction.

There's been a lot of talk about how Bond finally seduces a woman older than him. In a role that lasts only a couple of minutes, Monica Bellucci has the thankless task of being one of Bond's conquests and you do ask yourself if this fuss was warranted. Léa Seydoux plays the other Bond girl and is more central to the story although there isn't the emotional depth between the two characters. It's frankly difficult to believe that they could fall in love with each other and there's no way this relationship can compare with the one that Bond had with Vesper Lynd in Craig's first Bond film, Casino Royale.

Waltz is menacing as the villain but he's missing for huge chunks of the film. The story becomes exciting again whenever he's featured and the scene where he tortures Bond is gripping. One of Franz's henchmen, Mr Hinx (Dave Bautista), channels Jaws from The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker in portraying the thug with a limited vocabulary. The scene on the train where he is fighting Bond is also another highlight of the film.

Ralph Fiennes replaces Judi Dench as M and has quite a large role although the rapport between Craig and Dench is sorely missed. Fiennes adds authority to his role but isn't as convincing as Dench was in portraying M. The other two regulars in Harris and Whishaw have their moments to shine. Craig is a more serious Bond so he doesn't quote as many puns or one-liners as the previous Bonds. His dramatic skill comes to the fore in numerous scenes and he also capably fills the action requirements. There is a large number of stunt performers to showcase the action scenes which are handled superbly.

What is a Bond film without scenic locations? Places like Mexico, Morocco, Italy, Austria and England contribute to the visual aesthetics. The sound quality is also amazing with the sound effects bringing many of the action scenes to life. Thomas Newman has his first stint as a Bond composer with a welcome return to the John Barry days of lush orchestrations and the inclusion of Monty Norman's Bond theme.

Craig has been quoted as saying that he doesn't want to play Bond for too much longer. It will be sad to see him eventually vacate his post as he is reliable and doesn't let viewers down again in Spectre but it's the story that lets audiences down with its many superfluous scenes. For this reason, it doesn't rise to the pinnacle of Craig's Bond as exhibited in its predecessor, but it's still an entertaining follow-up.

**OCCASIONAL POTENTIAL MINOR SPOILERS**

I sometimes read reviews of films and wonder if the reviewer saw the same film i did, or whether there's some alternate universe out there which occasionally touches here in IMDb reviews.

Spectre has provoked that thought. There are reviewers who hate it - that's fair enough, it's a subjective thing - but there are also reviewers who criticise things that I simply didn't see wrong.

Let me explain. One of the biggest criticisms is that Daniel Craig is obviously fed up and disinterested. I think that's nonsense - he's playing a character who is fed up and disenfranchised from his department, and he plays it very well. It's been said that Christopher Waltz's character is a bit flat. Maybe - he's clearly a psychopath and therefore emotionally detached (as well as clearly unhinged), so why wouldn't he seem a little flat?

There are faults. In one of the pivotal scenes, the Spectre equivalent of Bond being on Goldfinger's laser cutting table, I found myself wondering what the point of this complicated arrangement actually was. And, indeed, why it would have been built in the first place - it seemed to be a particularly single-minded device we'd not seen anywhere else. There's also the question of why the young lady was seen suddenly walking faster and purposefully before ending up embroiled in the final climax.

But it's a Bond film, and sometimes things don't need to add up. The point is that it is an extremely good Bond film. The opening sequence was brilliant, and as a helicopter pilot I have to say it's nice to see helicopters getting a better (and far more realistic) role. The plot is excellent, established characters continue to grow while new ones are (generally) given space to develop and the whole thing carries on very nicely where Skyfall left off. The thing I like the most is that this series of Bond films has managed to be a very subtle reboot without actually being a reboot at all. That's a trick of which the Q branch would be proud...